Leader defies court order

[Leafless]

"They parked a converted school bus camper on the tracks and built a bonfire nearby as part of a rotating, escalating campaign to resolve a land claim issue the Indians say has been festering for 170 years."

Why are Indians such savages.

Why don't we ship the whole lot of them up to some isolated Northern location, where they can do whatever they want to do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/205732

[BubberMiley]

Why don't we ship the whole lot of them up to some isolated Northern location, where they can do whatever they want to do.

I was thinking the same thing about the likes of you.

[Leafless]

Why don't we ship the whole lot of them up to some isolated Northern location, where they can do whatever they want to do.

I was thinking the same thing about the likes of you.

Why is that? I'm not a savage.

If I was, I'd probably be doing the same thing as YOU, condoning actions of savages.

[ScottSA]

I think next time they should drive an armoured train through the bus whilst machinegunning each half left in the wake of the train, and anything else that moved. It'll be the last time the Mohawks get THAT bright idea.

[BubberMiley]

I'd probably be doing the same thing as YOU, condoning actions of savages.

All-capital-letters me didn't condone anything. You're projecting again. But what is savage about a peaceful demonstration, and what is not savage about something like, say, ScottSA's comments?

[Riverwind]

CN and anyone who lost money as a result of the blockade should be entitled to sue the protestors. If the protestors can't afford to pay then any income they make over the rest of their lives should be seized and paid out.

[Leafless]

I'd probably be doing the same thing as YOU, condoning actions of savages.

All-capital-letters me didn't condone anything. You're projecting again. But what is savage about a peaceful demonstration, and what is not savage about something like, say, ScottSA's comments?

Peaceful demonstration?

Parking a school bus on the main line of Canada's national railway.

Sounds like anarchy to me.

ScottSA's comments appear to be ironic and were born out of frustration due to the inaction of the OPP and CN police over this serious matter.

[BubberMiley]

ScottSA's comments appear to be ironic and were born out of frustration due to the inaction of the OPP and CN police over this serious matter.

I saw no winking smiley face. Your racist comments had no smiley faces either. Were they just borne out of frustration too? Does that make them okay?

[betsy]

Well, in the news, they've interviewed some passengers who got inconvenienced by these thugs. At least, one passenger was gutsy enough to say she's angry with these natives, that enough is enough!

The more they do these kind of tactics, the more I find it hard to have any sympathy for their cause or their plight, or whatever it is they're whining about! If they could casually cause problems for others without any consideration at all for those who have nothing to do with their problems....then why the heck should I care about them!

[geoffrey]

But what is savage about a peaceful demonstration, and what is not savage about something like, say, ScottSA's comments?

Trespassing is a crime in Canada, all those people should have been arrested...

Forcible entry

72. (1) A person commits forcible entry when that person enters real property that is in the actual and peaceable possession of another in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace.

Matters not material

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether or not a person is entitled to enter the real property or whether or not that person has any intention of taking possession of the real property.

Forcible detainer

(2) A person commits forcible detainer when, being in actual possession of real property without colour of right, he detains it in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace, against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

Questions of law

(3) The questions whether a person is in actual and peaceable possession or is in actual possession without colour of right are questions of law.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 72; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 10; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Punishment

73. Every person who commits forcible entry or forcible detainer is guilty of

( a ) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or

( b ) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Charge them all. Same with those at Caldonia. This group of terrorists needs to learn something about the rule of law in our country, letting them get away with these things is ridiculous and dangerous. They will continue to become bolder each time.

One thing is for sure, they all certainly have alot of "vacation" time to spend protesting......

CN and anyone who lost money as a result of the blockade should be entitled to sue the protestors. If the protestors can't afford to pay then any income they make over the rest of their lives should be seized and paid out.

Well, the second half is a little unreasonable as it would never apply to anyone else, but your first comment is reasonable. The band council should be sued as well, the Chief said that he supports their mission, but doesn't physically support it. My ass.

[BubberMiley]

This group of terrorists needs to learn something about the rule of law in our country,

You call blocking a train from passing terrorism? Do you even know what terrorism is?

[Riverwind]

Well, the second half is a little unreasonable as it would never apply to anyone else, but your first comment is reasonable. The band council should be sued as well, the Chief said that he supports their mission, but doesn't physically support it. My ass.

Actually, my comment applies to anyone who thinks their right to free speech includes imposing costs on others. I would like to see same approach with any illegal protest (we have many in BC - most of them are not by natives). I think it would be a much more effective deterrent than arresting them because so many now want to be arrested to 'make a point'.

Proving the band was complicit in court would be impossible so the only option is to go after the actual protesters. I think a lifetime of seeing the wages garnished would make them think twice before setting up another blockade.

[jbg]

Why don't we ship the whole lot of them up to some isolated Northern location, where they can do whatever they want to do.

I was thinking the same thing about the likes of you.

The law is the law. Civilized people do not resolve disputes by force.

[BubberMiley]

Civilized people do not resolve disputes by force.

I'm confused. Who are you referring to here? The Natives or the people who would civilize them through force?

[geoffrey]

This group of terrorists needs to learn something about the rule of law in our country,

You call blocking a train from passing terrorism? Do you even know what terrorism is?

Actually, the CC definition of terrorism includes:

83.01

B )

ii) that intentionally

E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©,

Unfortunately, protestors are allowed to be terrorists, whereas if al-Qaeda did this, terrorism charges would be levied.

Either way, they trespassed on private property and the owner suffered a loss as a result (not that CN has nothing to do with the dispute). It may not be criminal in your opinion, but there should be a civil remedy for the damages caused by these hooligans.

[Posit]

Many of you are amateurs.

Indians can't be sued. You cannot garnish an Indian's wages because they legally have no income when living on a reserve. They are protected under the Indian Act.

Getting a bus stuck across the railway tracks is not a crime. It is not terrorism nor can one promote terrorism against property. Holding a street party without a permit isn't a crime either. So a bunch of people who got their bus stuck on the railway and then decided to have a street party is not illegal.

They were served with a injunction and within 24 hours removed their equipment and stopped the party. Civil disputes between parties, such as disputes over property are not covered in the Criminal Code, nor do the police respond with criminal charges.

So what this boils down to is the act was a peaceful movement to instigate discussion and to expose the government's lack of action on land claims. Whether you take it as good or bad, you have been a willing partner in making that happen and all the MSM have done their part. The fact that we are discussing it at all is proof that their methods work - which makes the protestors much smarter than most of you.

[margrace]

Remember that Martin and the the Native Peoples signed a deal in BC and Harper promptly cancelled it. At the time the Natives protested and warned there would be more. We reap what we sow.

[BubberMiley]

Actually, the CC definition of terrorism includes:

83.01

B )

ii) that intentionally

E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©,

Did you read the part that I put in boldface, or had you drifted off by then?

[jbg]

Civilized people do not resolve disputes by force.

I'm confused. Who are you referring to here? The Natives or the people who would civilize them through force?

If tey want to forgo government benefits, and other benefits of "whitey" civilization, more power to them. But only if they surrender any arms and go back to the bow and arrow for fighting.

[Riverwind]

Indians can't be sued. You cannot garnish an Indian's wages because they legally have no income when living on a reserve. They are protected under the Indian Act.

If this is true then it is yet one more example of why aboriginal privileges are an absurd legacy of feudal society than has no place in a modern democracy.

Civil disputes between parties, such as disputes over property are not covered in the Criminal Code, nor do the police respond with criminal charges.

Civil disputes are generally resolved with lawsuits where they party at fault pays damages. If there is any merit to your 'Indians can't be sued' claim then it means the police must get involved because the civil option is denied to the injured party.

[Posit]

Here we go again......

Native peoples in North America were smelting metals long before Europeans. It was originally estimated that it was 3000 years before Europeans but scientists have recently revised that with the find of a smelting furnace in Virginia that predates European smelting knowledge by 7000 years.

Gun powder was invented by the Chinese. If we were to compare cultures it would appear the the Europeans were uncivilized and savages long after they fled Europe for the Americas to avoid religious persecution. Had it not been for the Natives' knowledge and agricultural practices, it would be likely the Europeans would not have survived their first winter (and in fact few did being ill prepared and uneducated)

[Posit]

"...one more example of why aboriginal privileges are an absurd legacy of feudal society..."

The Indian Act is an invention of Canadian democratic society. Had it been done under Iroquois Confederacy participatory democratic thinking, non-natives as well as natives would have had unfettered human rights and not those silly limitations we have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Civil disputes are generally resolved with lawsuits where they party at fault pays damages."

You don't know very much about civil law do you. In most municipalities line-fence disputes are adjudicated by a committee of Council, appointed for that purpose. Native people cannot sue the government over land issues when it continues to be the defendant and the judge. The only way to resolve land claims is meaningful and honest negotiations - something our government hasn't a good record on.

[betsy]

Civilized people do not resolve disputes by force.

I'm confused. Who are you referring to here? The Natives or the people who would civilize them through force?

Yes you are confused I think. We are talking of the present now....not some decades way back!

[betsy]

Remember that Martin and the the Native Peoples signed a deal in BC and Harper promptly cancelled it. At the time the Natives protested and warned there would be more. We reap what we sow.

We reap what we sow. Hallelujah!

That's why I think the Indians should be treated like any other tax-paying members of our society.

Think of the future! Stop this special status....and entitlement mentality...cos it's only getting passed on to the next generation. Why would our future generation be saddled with the same...and worsening....burden?

Yes I do believe, we reap what we sow!

[Posit]

"Stop this special status....and entitlement mentality...cos it's only getting passed on to the next generation."

We can't. Their rights extend to before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - before Confederation and British or French Colonist rule. The best that we can do is learn to live with them in our society and forget about trying to change them to suit our very restrictive and controlling system. Neither can we redefine "human rights". They are what they are and we are what we are. We must learn to get along better - including restoring all the lands issues to an equitable solution.