Mohawk acquittals show support on Native's side

Page 4

Quebec Mohawks - and people across Indian country - no doubt greeted with relief the recent vindication of the 40 or so people charged at the end of the Oka stand-off.

The 88 not guilty verdicts on charges ranging from participating in a riot to firearms offences are fascinating, given the twists and turns of jury trials.

It's impossible to know just what was on the minds of the 12 people who rendered the decisions. But it is possible to take a stab at a few conclusions.

One of those conclusions might be that the provincial and federal governments are way out of step with the public attitudes and values that juries are supposed to represent.

Robert (Mad Jap) Skidders, one of the defendants in the trial, said he believed the verdicts showed defence lawyers had successfully argued the Mohawks set up their blockade with peaceful intentions.

The facts bear that out. The first blockade protesting the expansion of the Oka golf course onto traditional land was a quiet affair on a dusty access road. It went up at the end of the winter of 1990 to block heavy machinery that would be brought in to clear sections of a sacred area known as the Pines.

It was only after the Surete du Quebec - the provincial police force - staged an armed, military raid on the blockade that the situation turned violent. And rather than recognizing the effect their provocation had on the situation and withdrawing, the Quebec government upped the staked by calling in 4,000 Canadian soldiers.

The 78-day stand-off ended with the surrender of dozens of weary people holed

up in a treatment centre. As was expected, many were subsequently arrested.

But clearly what the Quebec police and the military thought were crimes they could prove in court turned out to be something else.

A handful of the charges were tossed out during the trial for lack of evidence. The rest resulted in not-guilty verdicts.

On a technical level, that suggests Crown prosecutors could not prove to the jury

a given individual was breaking a specific law at a specific time.

But it also indicates that the jury was more prepared to give the Mohawks the benefit of the doubt when it came to the legitimacy of their claims and actions.

Maybe the Mohawks were provoked into committing whatever 'crimes' they were accused of. Maybe the various levels of government can't simply declare war on a community that actively opposes their wishes. After all, opposition to government is a right.

Maybe the jury even believed that the police, army and governments weren't taking their share of the blame for the events of that tragic summer.

We may never know what individual jury members believed when they rendered their verdict. But collectively, their decision indicates the Canadian public is not going to accept a heavy-handed, militaristic approach to dealing with legitimate Native concerns and peaceful civil disobedience.

Might is not always right...Thank God.

Over the last several months of constitutional negotiations, polls have shown public support for Native issues and the drive for self-government. Critics have warned that the support is shallow and won't last if the list of demands gets too long.

The jury at the Mohawk trial just may have proved the critics - and the federal and provincial government - wrong. Very wrong.