Lawless North

[jacee]

You are forgetting that all the injunction means is a judge has examined what people are doing, and determined it is illegal, and issued an order for them to stop. So we're not talking about the police ignoring an injunction but the police ignoring illegal behavior.That's nonsense. You don't keep the peace by ignoring criminal behavior right under your nose. The job of police is to keep order, not the peace.Again, this is nonsense. Our society is built on the use of force. Ultimately, everything ordered by government, from municipal bylaws, to traffic tickets, to taxes to laws against murder are all ultimately upheld by the use of force. And the amount of force used is always related to the amount of resistance. Ultimately, that includes killing people if necessary to uphold the law.

Police don't shoot unarmed people. Get a grip.

But if the people of Ontario continue to vote into power incompetent weasels then they have to pay for that. Of course, they're already paying for that, and will pay more and more as the years go by. And this should simply be added to that. Why should companies like Debeers be out of pocket because the government is too frightened to enforce basic laws?

Vote 'em out.

You think Tim Hudak's going to tell the police to start killing them?

[Argus]

"The government" isn't making these decisions, and politicians cannot give orders to the police.

What country do you live in?

The police are puppets to their political masters here and always have been. A police chief or commissioner who tells his political boss no is soon an ex-chief or commissioner. The OPP is doing what the McGuinty government tells it to do -- or in this case, not do.

[jacee]

If you block a street as a white man because you think your getting a raw deal that your city council made for you on your behalf I can guarantee the police would not be waiting for court injunctions ! You would be told to move right now! The only answer out of your mouth would be yes Sir or they would physically take you away. This is race based policeing brought about by political correctness. The Police allowed the Tamils to block University Avenue and the Expressway in Toronto. This illegal protest put peoples lives in jeopardy because they cut off access to several hospitals.

I know my Wife was caught up in trying to get to sick kids because my Grandson was scheduled for surgery. In his case was not life threatening but I am sure that more important emergencys were in jeopardy. Police have a sworn duty to treat all citizens equally if they are breaking the law.

I believe seven people went to court Friday. Have you heard the outcomes?

Maybe we should see how things proceed?

[jacee]

What country do you live in?

The police are puppets to their political masters here and always have been. A police chief or commissioner who tells his political boss no is soon an ex-chief or commissioner. The OPP is doing what the McGuinty government tells it to do -- or in this case, not do.

In your dreams.

McGuinty tried telling the police what not to do and they did it in defiance.

Harris told the OPP to get the f*****g Indians out of the park" and they killed somebody and brutally beat an old man.

Politicians do not "direct" the police.

[jacee]

Here's the report from court:

timmins-judge-slams-ice-road-blockade-with-a-dire-warning-to-protesters

ustice Riopelle said Friday afternoon he will take time during the weekend to draw up a fresh injunction, as requested by De Beers Canada, to order the blockade removed from the ice road located between the De Beers Victor Mine and community of Attawapiskat.

Justice Riopelles first court order, one that has been ignored so far, will continue through the weekend and until Monday midnight.

...

This conduct is unlawful, he said. Criminal charges will be laid.

Justice Riopelle then said he was going to address the issue of enforcement or lack of enforcement of the injunction.

The police have a duty, an obligation, to enforce court orders, he said, adding that he did not put a time limit on the first court order.

He said he left that up to the discretion of the police, since the judge said the police know best how to carry out enforcement without causing the issue to escalate. Riopelle said he does not want anyone to be injured, maimed or killed.

He added he doesnt want to see any police action to causes other Aboriginals to rise up in protest in other parts of the country.

And this ...

OPP headed in ...

It is possible the large OPP convoy headed to Attawapiskat today may be enforcing the injunction.

Earlier reports from Attawapiskat have suggested that most of the people staying on the blockade are older or ill. It is not known at this time (12:30EST) if other factors have caused the OPP response of about forty officers heading to the situation are a result of a larger blockade..

Edited February 24, 2013 by jacee

[Muddy]

If they are old and sick then the braves should move them out of harms way. Or will they hide behind the old and ill so that they can put the blame on the outside world if some old guy or gal gets hurt ? That will make a great photo op. I thought this barracade was about hunting and trapping rights ? Seems odd that old and ill would be the ones on the front line !

[jacee]

It appears the blockade ended before Fri court ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/de-beers-says-blockade-of-diamond-mine-near-attawapiskat-is-over-1.1148269

ATTAWAPISKAT, Ont. -- De Beers Canada says the blockade at its winter road near the Attawapiskat First Nation in northern Ontario has ended.

The company says residents from the reserve ended the blockade Thursday evening and the first convoy reached the site of its Victor diamond mine at 9 p.m.

De Beers says it has agreed to review items in the impact benefit agreement and to look at employment and training.

SORRY ... MISTAKE

This is 2 weeks old.

So ... judge is writing new injunction for Monday, 40 OPP on the way in.

Edited February 24, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

It appears the blockade ended before Fri court ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/de-beers-says-blockade-of-diamond-mine-near-attawapiskat-is-over-1.1148269

ATTAWAPISKAT, Ont. -- De Beers Canada says the blockade at its winter road near the Attawapiskat First Nation in northern Ontario has ended.

The company says residents from the reserve ended the blockade Thursday evening and the first convoy reached the site of its Victor diamond mine at 9 p.m.

De Beers says it has agreed to review items in the impact benefit agreement and to look at employment and training.

The only thing De Beers should be doing is looking at pressing charges.

[jacee]

Ok new update ...

Ice road blockade is down

The Attawapiskat Ice Road blockade is down. Ontario Provincial Police revealed Saturday afternoon that the South Winter Road, the road that connects to the De Beers Victor Diamond Mine, has been re-opened.

The protestors appear to have voluntarily complied with the Superior Court Order without further incident, said the OPP news release.

[Muddy]

The only thing De Beers should be doing is looking at pressing charges.

But they are old, ill and Native !! Have you no heart ? Is it not part of the Indian Act to blockade roads at a whim.

[Accountability Now]

The protestors appear to have voluntarily complied with the Superior Court Order without further incident, said the OPP news release.

Voluntarily complied? I assume this is going to help them in their court case considering the judge is forced to take their aboriginal descent into account.

[Accountability Now]

But they are old, ill and Native !! Have you no heart ? Is it not part of the Indian Act to blockade roads at a whim.

Lol. Your right....we should let them just walk away. I mean..if I held up a bank and took people hostage for an hour and then voluntarily gave myself up....they woudn't press charges. Right?

[shortlived]

Let them have the mine it will solve two problems, first, it will put them to work, give them adequette shelter, and the key is just insuring their income is taxed property.

Natives are just being abused, it was their title, and it was taken from them through unethical means. We don't need that mine. If they are going to make money from it they are going to operate it.

I'm not saying DeBeers doesn't deserve to make money, but all this mining stuff is sh!ting on first nations. It is white interests that are effecting peoples lives. Just like ring of fire it will piss on attawapiskat which is in the path of runoff from the mega mine being developed north of Nakina.

These resource operations should be done consensually on a lease term basis hammered out with first nations groups just going in there and ruining natives quality of life is unethical.

I'm with the OPP on not interfering with legitimate protest to abuse of first nations groups.

Also the article lies, the stuff ain't too heavy to fly it, it is too expensive and will compromise their profits cause it is cheaper to drive it in, there is a clear difference, and the Sun article is a deception.

The government is just giving away land and subsurface rights... when in fact the government was suppose to hold in trust the land and provide fair value for the land, if companies are making millions off the land it wasn't exactly sold(read expropriated) for a fair price.

Resource extactors of first nations lands have too good a deal, especially when they don't get a fair cut of proceeds off extraction and damages to adjoining lands, ecosystems and waterways.

DeBeeers also has other options like sea delivery, or hovercraft, they just don't want to pay those prices.

They could also set up a factor on site or alter their mining methods.

I have to say it reflects poorly on the company to base its operations solely on access to a winter road. The same is true of other northern mining developments depending on a sole route of access to maintain safety of operations is just absurd.

I can't understand why with advanced carbon alloy manufacture why such destructive open pit mining projects would exist in the first place.

Oh and if it is true "multi-national monopoly held by DeBeers. They have warehouses in multiple countries filled to the ceiling with diamonds, but don't sell more than so many a year, to purposefully drive the price up and make more money."

then why not use some of your strategic reserve instead of tearing up the planet for more warehouse space?

It is just unneeded destructive process.

Good business is good, however, society should weigh the need of ripping open and destroying an area the size of Toronto while there are billions of dollars of the resource stockpiled that would last for years, and this for a product that can be manufactured for less than the sale price artificially.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLoC8qIdsps

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

I'm with you, shortlived!

Not sure it'll fly tho ...

[Accountability Now]

Let them have the mine it will solve two problems, first, it will put them to work, give them adequette shelter, and the key is just insuring their income is taxed property.

I guess you are forgetting about the billion dollars that went into building the mine? Was Attawpaiskat going to put up that money to take the risk to mine? You are also forgetting about the Impact Agreement deal that was made and agreed to by 85% of the band? You are also forgetting about the millions of dollars transferred to the band for compensation for a deal that was made in good faith. Any ammendments made to this deal will truly prove that the Attawapiskat people are acting in bad faith. I have chosen my words very carefully to not say the FN people as this would be an Attawipiskat issue. However, it will no doubt reflect poorly on other FN bands trying to fairly negotiate their claims.

Natives are just being abused, it was their title, and it was taken from them through unethical means. We don't need that mine. If they are going to make money from it they are going to operate it.

Please read the James Bay treaty where the Attawapiskat elders signed away their rights and title to the said land. You are making a false claim that really has nothing to do with the current issue. The fact is that the band agreed to let De Beers enter their land and invest a billion dollars to set up shop. If they didn't want De Beers there then they could have shot them down at the table.

These resource operations should be done consensually on a lease term basis hammered out with first nations groups just going in there and ruining natives quality of life is unethical.

Again...are you not aware of the agreement that was made? There is nothing sneaky going on here. De Beers was upfront and negotiated their way onsite only to have the band renege on their end. I've asked this before and have never received an answer....what if De Beers would have lost money on this mining project? Would Attawapiskat be there to chip in? After all they want to be partners in the deal.

The rest of your arguement just seems to be random points. Some of which I agree with but others I don't

[jacee]

Please read the James Bay treaty where the Attawapiskat elders signed away their rights and title to the said land. You are making a false claim that really has nothing to do with the current issue. The fact is that the band agreed to let De Beers enter their land and invest a billion dollars to set up shop. If they didn't want De Beers there then they could have shot them down at the table.

Again, I have to point out that not all rights were "signed away" via this or other treaties. Indigenous Peoples always retained rights to sustain themselves from their traditional lands ... all of it. That may mean hunting, fishing, trapping, trading, etc., earning a living from the land, in modern interpretation.

The aboriginal rights retained are the reason DeBeers had to negotiate an Impact-Benefit Agreement for this mine site, and will have to do so for each additional site too.

IBA's also include dispute resolution mechanisms, recognizing that impacts might arise that weren't anticipated. They are not written in stone.

Edited February 26, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Again, I have to point out that not all rights were "signed away" via this or other treaties. Indigenous Peoples always retained rights to sustain themselves from their traditional lands ... all of it. That may mean hunting, fishing, trapping, trading, etc., earning a living from the land, in modern interpretation.

The aboriginal rights retained are the reason DeBeers had to negotiate an Impact-Benefit Agreement for this mine site, and will have to do so for each additional site too.

IBA's also include dispute resolution mechanisms, recognizing that impacts might arise that weren't anticipated. They are not written in stone.

I'm not really interested in discussing this with you as I have been around the bend and back only to discover that you don't really have objective truths but rather interpretations. Just as your reply shows:

1. "at may mean hunting, fishing, trapping, trading, etc., earning a living from the land, in modern interpretation." Again the modern interpretation part...thank you to the liberal courts.

2. "IBA's also include dispute resolution mechanisms, recognizing that impacts might arise that weren't anticipated." I hardly believe that road blockades were apart of the dispute resolution of the IBA!! Also...what impact has arisen that has caused this? The only claim they have is that these people have not been paid enough. They shouldn't be talking with De Beers....they should be talking with the band who accepted the deal.

[jacee]

I'm not really interested in discussing this with you as I have been around the bend and back only to discover that you don't really have objective truths but rather interpretations. Just as your reply shows:

1. "at may mean hunting, fishing, trapping, trading, etc., earning a living from the land, in modern interpretation." Again the modern interpretation part...thank you to the liberal courts.

They are the courts, and their interpretation is the law, whether you agree or not. You can state an opinion disagreeing with the law, but you cannot change the law to suit yourself.

2. "IBA's also include dispute resolution mechanisms, recognizing that impacts might arise that weren't anticipated." I hardly believe that road blockades were apart of the dispute resolution of the IBA!! Also...what impact has arisen that has caused this? The only claim they have is that these people have not been paid enough. They shouldn't be talking with De Beers....they should be talking with the band who accepted the deal.

... And the Band Council should negotiate with DeBeers.

I agree.

I'm not sure where this process broke down.

I expect all parties will be more diligent in the future.

[Accountability Now]

They are the courts, and their interpretation is the law, whether you agree or not. You can state an opinion disagreeing with the law, but you cannot change the law to suit yourself.

... And the Band Council should negotiate with DeBeers.

I agree.

I'm not sure where this process broke down.

I expect all parties will be more diligent in the future.

You clearly didn't read what I said. I said these people shouldn't be talking with De Beers, they should be talking with the band who voted 85% to accept the deal. Ask the band leaders where their money is.

[jacee]

You clearly didn't read what I said. I said these people shouldn't be talking with De Beers, they should be talking with the band who voted 85% to accept the deal. Ask the band leaders where their money is.

???

I clearly did read, agreed and extended it only to say that the Band Council negotiates with DeBeers, ie, if there are unresolved or unanticipated impacts on traplines, for example.

Edited February 27, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

???

I clearly did read, agreed and extended it only to say that the Band Council negotiates with DeBeers, ie, if there are unresolved or unanticipated impacts on traplines, for example.

Unresolved? Unanticipated? These issues neither of those. The people with the disputes are mad because they didn't get paid what they feel was a fair portion for their trap lines and for encroachment on burial grounds. They just want more. A change order in a normal business contract is when something comes up that is truly unanticipated. They knew about the trap lines and the burial grounds years ago when they signed the deal. There is no room for a change order especially when the reason is greed. Edited February 27, 2013 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

Unresolved? Unanticipated? These issues neither of those. The people with the disputes are mad because they didn't get paid what they feel was a fair portion for their trap lines and for encroachment on burial grounds. They just want more. A change order in a normal business contract is when something comes up that is truly unanticipated. They knew about the trap lines and the burial grounds years ago when they signed the deal. There is no room for a change order especially when the reason is greed.

I really don't know enough detail about the specific concerns to have an opinion on that.

I don't think you do either as we don't have access to the court submissions.

Those are issues for the community and Band Council to work out and negotiate with DeBeers via the dispute resolution process.

[Accountability Now]

I really don't know enough detail about the specific concerns to have an opinion on that.

I don't think you do either as we don't have access to the court submissions.

Those are issues for the community and Band Council to work out and negotiate with DeBeers via the dispute resolution process.

Fair enough. I just hope it's a true and fair resolution which is based on the intent of the deal and not on fear of native response.

[shortlived]

I guess you are forgetting about the billion dollars that went into building the mine?

Geuss you are forgetting about the billions of dollars of environmental resource and water supply destroyed by the mine.

Agreement deal that was made and agreed to by 85% of the band? You are also forgetting about the millions of dollars transferred to the band for compensation for a deal that was made in good faith. Any ammendments made to this deal will truly prove that the Attawapiskat people are acting in bad faith.

And the other 15% has no rights?

Please read the James Bay treaty where the Attawapiskat elders signed away their rights and title to the said land.

I've read the James bay treaty can you perhaps quote the area you are referring to. Also who exactly signed...

You are making a false claim that really has nothing to do with the current issue. The fact is that the band agreed to let De Beers enter their land and invest a billion dollars to set up shop. If they didn't want De Beers there then they could have shot them down at the table.

How many years was the land leased for?

Is anyone still alive from then?

If you are talking treaty #9 you are in another world if you think that thing has been adhered to by the government or even that it was a bilateral agreement.

Robinson was a shill backed by business interests in the south forcing concessions from natives, little else.

Indian Affairs at that time was closer to Nazi Germany than anything that would be considered legal by todays standards.

I'd sooner spit on it than bind first nations to it.

It is their land, the stipulations of treaty 9 have not been met by the government.

take for instance

Missabay, the recognized chief of the band, then spoke, expressing the fears of the Indians that, if they signed the treatythey would be compelled to reside upon the reserve to be set apart for them, and would be deprived of the fishing and hunting privileges which they now enjoy.

On being informed that their fears in regard to both these matters were groundless as their present manner of making their livelihood would in no way be interfered with. This request was at once acceded to and the meeting adjourned.

hard to hunt animals in a mine, hard to fish in polluted rivers with no fish!

it is their land any development that infringes their traditional capacities is a violation of treaty 9. Including mines or other development that pollute their waters, or remove their animals habitats.

Do note I live in treaty 9. This is just the facts, even if it personally disadvantaged my own property rights (Which it sort of does atleast from Canada/Ontario.)

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Accountability Now]

Geuss you are forgetting about the billions of dollars of environmental resource and water supply destroyed by the mine.

Please cite where this figure is used. My figure is real....it cost over $1B to build the mine site. I think you are exaggerating yours.

And the other 15% has no rights?

In Canada we call it democracy...you know...majority rules. However I fully understand that FN don't always run democratic processes such that the band makes most if not all final decisions. In this case the band leaders decided to go ahead with it. So either way...those 15% of the people just don't get their way! As for rights, they did have the right to vote...and they do have the right to collect the compensation from the mine...and of course they do have the right to leave the reserve if they feel they aren't being treated fairly. So yes...definitely the same rights as everyone else on the reserve.

I've read the James bay treaty can you perhaps quote the area you are referring to. Also who exactly signed...

Giving up all rights....

"the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada, for His Majesty the King and His successors for ever, all their rights titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: That portion or tract of land lying and being in the province of Ontario, bounded on the south by the height of land and the northern boundaries of the territory ceded by the Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850, and the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850, and bounded on the east and north by the boundaries of the said province of Ontario as defined by law, and on the west by a part of the eastern boundary of the territory ceded by the Northwest Angle Treaty No. 3; the said land containing an area of ninety thousand square miles, more or less"

For use of mining....

"And, whereas, the said Indians have been notified and informed by His Majesty's said commission that it is His desire to open for settlement, immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering, and such other purposes as to His Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country, bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of His Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good-will between them and His Majesty's other subjects, and that His Indian people may know and be assured of what allowances they are to count upon and receive from His Majesty's bounty and benevolence."

How many years was the land leased for?

Is anyone still alive from then?

If you are talking treaty #9 you are in another world if you think that thing has been adhered to by the government or even that it was a bilateral agreement.

There are two agreements here. De Beers Impact Agreement and Treaty 9. I don't know how long the De Beers agreement is for but I believe they estimated the mine to be around for 10 years. The Treaty is around for ever or until both parties shut it down.

Is anyone alive from then? I'm assuming that you mean from Treaty 9 and not the De Beers deal which was signed in 2005 (and most certainly has the signing people still alive). As for Treaty 9, Attawapiskat entered the deal in 1930 via Schedule C. Anyone born in 1930 would be 82-83 years old so the younger ones could be. Anyone signing the deal is probably gone unless they were in their 20s when they signed it. Are you saying that because those people are no longer around that the Treaty is not valid? I'm not really following your question.

You are suggesting that Treaty 9 has not been adhered to. Please cite some examples to educate me. Has the government broken the Treaty for those involved in Attawapiskat? Is that why they were blocking ice roads?

hard to hunt animals in a mine, hard to fish in polluted rivers with no fish!

it is their land any development that infringes their traditional capacities is a violation of treaty 9. Including mines or other development that pollute their waters, or remove their animals habitats.

Again...you need to ready Treaty 9 where it specifically says the governments intentions are to use the land for mining and other purposes. Is that not clear enough?

First...all the land is government land...even the reserves. Second....the development of this said mine was approved by the band. So how the hell is it a violation of the treaty? I'm seriously doubting your credibilty here. Perhaps you are talking about other mines or other developments other than De Beers...which let me remind you is what we are talking about.