Upholding the rule of law

Page 4

Something wrong is happening out at Burnt Church, and it needs to stop. There are crimes being committed on Miramichi Bay, and immediate action should be taken to stop the criminals from perpetrating further illegal acts. The rule of law must be upheld. The Canadian prime minister and his fisheries minister have pronounced that "the law must be enforced" in this situation. But if that were truly to be the case right now, if in fact the law was being enforced and the rule of law respected, things would be very different than the dangerous farce taking place out there on the water these days.

The time has come to put an end to the criminality taking place in the waters off Burnt Church. The federal government and white fishermen must respect the law and stop attacking Mi'kmaq people in the just and legal exercise of their rights.

What we have in Burnt Church at the moment is a peaceable group of Natives doing what they must to survive and feed themselves, and in doing so facing down the threat of invasion by a greedy and violent horde of white people supported by the paramilitary forces of the state- what else is new? Is this the year 1500 or 2000?

Did I say greedy? White fishermen take 99 per cent of the 'resource' from Miramichi Bay. The Canadians' own high court has recognized the Mi'kmaq's treaty right to earn a livelihood by fishing. Significantly, it also constrained the federal government's power to regulate the Mi'kmaq fishery, stipulating that it may act to limit the Mi'kmaq only in the interest of conservation and after consultation with the Mi'kmaq themselves. With the Mi'kmaq taking a mere one per cent of the "resource" at this point, there is clearly no legal justification in Canadian law for the federal government's acting against the Mi'kmaq fishery.

Did I say violent? The media, in the service of the state and always respecting the interests of their readers, of course has distorted the situation and reversed the truth in its portrayal of the violence at Burnt Church. Capitalizing on the fact that most Canadians instinctually believe that Natives are bad, the media has proffered no shortage of mythical 'warriors' and maligned radical youth to satisfy the fearful mythology of Indian-hating that runs through mainstream culture.

The media portrayals of the white fishermen as (excuse my paraphrase) "hard-working family men just trying to earn a buck and who play by the rules and who won't put up with any unfair special treatment for Indians," their deference to the federal messenger, mediator or whatever, Bob Rae, as thoughtful, reasonable and tolerant, both contrast sharply with the image of the Mi'kmaq as angry, irrational and confrontational. Yet, to date, it seems that the only people who have explicitly threatened violence and who have been proven to wield weapons on the scene are white fishermen.

All of this is sickening, especially considering where it is all headed. But it is just the face of things. The deeper reality is that Burnt Church is about something much larger than lobsters and fish quotas and money. It is all about mass criminality, conquest and survival, the life and death of nations.

There is a word that cannot be spoken in this country, and it is "genocide." Oh, Canada often uses the unspeakable word as a weapon against various Africans, for example, in laying blame for the horrors of famine and war in places such as Rwanda. Canada has gained much undue respect and unearned credibility internationally by pointing a finger accusingly, and posturing outward as the good, sensible and humane people willing to take on the cause of human rights and to support international law. But there are stains and dirt under Canada's own vigorous fingernail, as the conflict at Oka before it and Burnt Church now is demonstrating.

I spoke the unspeakable word genocide, and in anticipation of being labeled an extremist I offer the following proof of Canada's genocidal criminality.

The 1948 Uited Nations Convention on Genocide (to which Canada is a signatory and thus bound) defines the crime of genocide as any action taken by a government that involves killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group, or forcibly transferring children of one group to another group.

To be criminal, in terms of international law, a government need only do one of those things. Our sad, collective history of dispossession, police brutality, residential schools, child apprehension, adoption to white families, and forced economic deprivation is well documented. Thus, who can deny that Canada has perpetrated the crime of genocide against Indigenous peoples as defined by the United Nations?

And it continues. Considering the facts of the present situation at Burnt Church, it is apparent that the Canadian government has taken actions in support of the economic interest of white fishermen and to defend the claim of its own authority over the Mi'kmaq nation. These do in fact constitute genocide in its meaning in international law. Federal authorities have attempted to and may yet kill Mi'kmaq, they have caused serious bodily and mental harm to Mi'kmaq, and they are imposing a policy which denies the right of self-determination and the identity of the Mi'kmaq people and whose long-term objective is the destruction of the Mi'kmaq nation.

In this context, it would seem that the Mi'kmaq are entirely justified in defending themselves against the violent attacks by white fishermen, and in resisting the application of violent force against them in support of white fishermen's interests by the Canadian state.

For all the ignorant talk of "one law for all" in this country, people seem to easily forget that Canadian law and policy operate within a larger mral and legal universe, and that the rule of law is not comprised solely in statutes and policy statements passed by the Parliament of Canada or in the political decisions of the prime minister, and not at all in public opinion. There are higher laws that must be respected and enforced. We all have a responsibility to those higher laws, and to the demands moral and international laws place on us, including the responsibility to resist injustice even if that injustice is committed under the cloak and mantle of governmental authority.

There is a basic and essential principle in British common law: unlawful actions are justified by the extremity of the situation. The concept is an ancient one in the British tradition and has been reaffirmed many times over in various courts to vindicate people who have stood against unjust laws and evil intent by rulers. The main idea is that one should not be punished when the act of breaking a law prevents more evil than it has caused. By this principle, the Mi'kmaq and their supporters are perfectly justified in resisting Canadian authority in this case because they have set as their objective the simple exercise of their treaty rights, and in their actions seek only to prevent illegal interference from white fishermen and to stop Canadian authorities from imposing an unjust rule upon them.

There is no aggression on the Mi'kmaq part, and their actions to this point have been restrained and have met even the standard justifications of resistance in the British common law tradition. Specifically: preventing a crime is in fact a reasonable defence in the law; international law is relevant in Canada; genocide is a crime in international law, and as well the actions of both the white fishermen and federal authorities are illegal in Canada; these crimes have obviously been perpetrated and their continuation is clearly imminent; the Mi'kmaq's actions are intended practically to prevent the commission of these crimes; the Mi'kmaq actionsare reasonable under the circumstances, as they have considered and exhausted alternative courses of action to effectively prevent the crimes.

It should hold that if the international and domestic law punishes those who commit crimes, then it clearly authorizes individuals to prevent those crimes. Thus, the justification for Mi'kmaq resistance at Burnt Church is clear. In regards to the federal government, Canada actively promotes a general policy of genocide and disregard for its own constitutional law; both genocide and the current policy are illegal; Canada is committing genocide; and, actions taken to stop Canada's further commission of the crime are justified and legal under international law.

In regards to the organized racists, white fishermen are collectively acting in an aggressive and violent manner toward Mi'kmaq fishermen, having on numerous occasions broken the peace, explicitly threatened the Mi'kmaq's life and property, and interfered with the Mi'kmaq's right to earn a livelihood. The white fishermen's actions are illegal and life-threatening, and actions taken by the Mi'kmaq to protect their lives and property and to prevent the white fishermen's commission of further crimes are certainly justified.

Whatever happens at Burnt Church, let us not waver from the understanding that the Mi'kmaq are the righteous people in this conflict, and that they are being persecuted for simply living as Mi'kmaq in accordance with their traditions, rights and under the provisions of a treaty with the Crown. We should all stand strongly beside them as they defend themselves against aggression, and it should make no difference whether the perpetrators are local fishermen, police officers or high officials of the federal government. Right is right, and sometimes the law is an ass. The Mi'kmaq are standing for justice and the rule of law, for trust among people and for the honor of sacred promises. No treaty, no relationship, indeed, no country can survive long in the