Skip to main content

View Diary: Native Americans Declare War on Fracking. Canada Declares War on Native Americans. Updates. (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You could add "Natives declare war on police" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalSal, HugoDog, duhban
    Molotov cocktails were thrown at officers and at least five police vehicles were set ablaze during a confrontation on Thursday between the RCMP and protesters of a proposed shale gas development in New Brunswick.
    Throwing a Molotov cocktail at someone = attempted murder.  Those protesters are lucky that the police did not respond with lethal force.

    "Anyone can support me when they think I'm right. What I want is someone that will support me when I am wrong." Sir John A. MacDonald

    by Johnny Nucleo on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 03:15:12 PM PDT

    •  Source the diarist used is right wing CTV (9+ / 0-)

      Here is the same story written in The Globe and Mail - a more reputable news source:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 04:10:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, when the police attack it's self defense (18+ / 0-)

      and when the people attacked defend their land it's attempted murder.

      Same as it ever was.

      •  regardless of what the police do (0+ / 0-)

        throwing firebombs at them is a dumb idea AoT and it's certainly not a non-violent protest and it's certainly not going to win sympathy.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 05:22:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are undermining sympathy (16+ / 0-)

          as are the others who present this as an attack rather than self defense, because that's what it is. The lack of sympathy for these actions because some think that the police deserve special rights and exceptions when it comes to people defending themselves. I certainly don't doubt that many people agree on that, but given that most people don't give a shit about the constant attacks on first nations peoples I think that the idea that those people should suddenly care about "sympathy" is absurd.

          No one would be talking about this if those cop cars hadn't burned and everyone knows it. No one makes a peep when First Nations or American Indians get physically attacked in some way or another. It's only when they fight back when it becomes news.

          And no, it isn't a non-violent protest. No one said it was and no one said it had to be. A non-violent protest would have ended with a whimper and no press in this case. First Nations have the same right to defend themselves that every nation has. The continuing genocide  is unacceptable.

          •  I don't think so (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, jpmassar

            I think the actions of the protestors do that on their own. I mean granted what happened when is a lot of 'he said she said' but it's pretty indisputable that cars were set on fire and that such action flies in the face of non-violent protest. There's nothing special about this or the police doing their job. They were handed a lawful injunction by the courts that is all there really is to it.

            Moreover I would argue to their credit they actually spent two whole weeks trying to find a peaceful solution. Kind of makes me wonder just who is being unreasonable here.

            And genocide? Um are you alleging the police killed people?

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 06:55:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I believe the court order was only given (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, Don midwest

              yesterday.

            •  So then only nonviolent protest is acceptable? (11+ / 0-)

              Because I can think of plenty of times that violence is acceptable. Self defense being on example.

              Moreover I would argue to their credit they actually spent two whole weeks trying to find a peaceful solution.
              No, they spent two whole weeks trying to get the protesters to move without having to attack them using violence. There was no more compromise than the Tea Party offered during the shutdown. The government's offer was "move or we'll move you". And I'll say this again, you are supporting violence on the part of the government. You are apologizing for violence on the part of the government.

              And genocide? Um are you alleging the police killed people?Sorry, that was a bit out of left field if you don't know the history of First Nations peoples in Canada. There has been a continuing attempt to erase First Nations from the country for a long time. This is another example of that. These protesters were trying to stop their land from being destroyed by fracking, which would physically injure their friends and family. Which might already have injured their friends and family.

              •  yes (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar, AoT

                I'm not an anarchist and I don't support anarchy.

                For violence to be justifiable the situation would have to beyond extraordinary. We're talking full on military coup or the police marching in and indiscriminately firing into the crowd. Even then I wouldn't find it acceptable but necessary.

                And what do you expect the police to do? They were handled a lawful injunction saying that this protest had to be broken up. Did you expect them to just selectively ignore that? Because that to me would be the worst thing the police could do. Better a neutral enforcement of the law then some selective enforcement as gods only know where that would lead us.

                I'm not going to comment on the last part simply because I am uninformed on the issue. What I will say is past treatment of native people here in the US has been deplorable and if some of the tweets in the diary are accurate then at the very least some people need to lose their jobs over what they said. But as far as I can tell no one died here and there seems to even be few serious injuries as such if there is past evidence of some sort of attempt to erase First Nations peoples I can't see that here. Everything the RCMP did seems to speak to restraint but who knows what future information will provide. Right now the situation is a mess and maybe there was bad behaviour on the RCMP's part.

                However as I said outside of incrdible extraordinary circumstances  there is no justification for violent protest.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:26:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So then evictions are extraordinary? (7+ / 0-)

                  As are arresting drunk drivers?

                  Because both of those involve violence. Unless you have a definition of violence that exempts the police.

                  I'm not going to comment on the last part simply because I am uninformed on the issue. What I will say is past treatment of native people here in the US has been deplorable and if some of the tweets in the diary are accurate then at the very least some people need to lose their jobs over what they said. But as far as I can tell no one died here and there seems to even be few serious injuries as such if there is past evidence of some sort of attempt to erase First Nations peoples I can't see that here. Everything the RCMP did seems to speak to restraint but who knows what future information will provide. Right now the situation is a mess and maybe there was bad behaviour on the RCMP's part.
                  I would suggest looking into the history of Canada and it's treatment of First Nations. I'd say that the US was worse in toto but Canada made a valiant attempt to catch up in the early 20th century. That;s what my original comment was about. The RCMP played a major role in that history. This isn't a new conflict by any stretch of the imagination. And if the RCMP was really trying to act with restraint the they wouldn't have attacked First Nations people on their land while they are protesting another attack on their sovereignty. The RCMP don't have a choice of restraint. They are a tool of violence, that is all.
                  •  um I think you are confusing things (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jpmassar, AoT

                    if you drink and drive you have broken the law. I'm not going to get into a morality argument with you on that or any other law. Morality is in my opinion one of the dumbest ideas ever and I don't ever want my laws to be based on morality.

                    Now if you break the law the police are obligated to do something about it. Generally speaking that means you're getting arrested. If you choose to resist said arrest then you again are breaking the law (not to mention being incredibly dumb) and you can expect the officers to do what they can to execute their duties to place you in lawful custody.

                    That is how the police are set up.

                    I really don't understand what is so unexpected about this, I mean we fully expect people in other positions to do their jobs. I mean it's not like I can just call up my lab and be like 'I don't feel like doing chemistry today but you have to pay me any ways'.

                    Violently resisting the police doesn't really make you anything other then an idiot in my opinion unless as I have previously said you have beyond extraordinary circumstances. This doesn't even come close and the worst part is how much the protesters might have hurt their cause in the process (I'm unsure of the politics in Canada).

                    PS writing myself a note to do so as I've always meant to learn about Canadian history any ways but will have to wait till after the work week I think.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:51:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not confusing anything (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      duhban, churchylafemme, caul, BYw
                      Now if you break the law the police are obligated to do something about it. Generally speaking that means you're getting arrested. If you choose to resist said arrest then you again are breaking the law (not to mention being incredibly dumb) and you can expect the officers to do what they can to execute their duties to place you in lawful custody.
                      And you manage to avoid the question of violence completely. The police use violence and the threat of violence to execute their duties. This is fact. But you don't want to talk about violence. You want to talk about law. Law is, in this context, a justification for violence. You're confusing things by pretending that the police aren't the primary vector of violence in the US. They are.
                      Violently resisting the police doesn't really make you anything other then an idiot in my opinion unless as I have previously said you have beyond extraordinary circumstances.
                      And yet I haven't seen a single example of an acceptable use of violence except when the police use violence. Yes, the police in the US are very powerful, but that's a de facto argument against resistance, not a moral argument against it. And you seem to be trying to make a moral argument. Or at least a de jure argument.
                      •  yes they do (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        AoT

                        but that's because way too many people think they are too important, too high, too whatever to accept the fact that they just broke the law and are going to get arrested.

                        As such violence is sadly a part of their job description. I'd love for that to be otherwise but it's not and will likely continue to be that way for a long time.

                        The police are not the primary vector of violence in the US. That's just going to be a point of disagreement between us. I don't know what you consider 'acceptable use of force' for the police but I suspect we're not going to agree on that either.

                        The police don't make the laws they merely enforce them and as long as they do so as close to impartially as you humanly can I'm fine with the job they're doing. For me it's just that simple.

                        Der Weg ist das Ziel

                        by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:21:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So you support the use of violence (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          caul

                          except when it's used in protest. Why doesn't the use of violence make government illegitimate but does make protests illegitimate?

                          •  I never support violence (0+ / 0-)

                            I do think that sometimes it is justified such as when that angry 250 lb drunk is insisting that it's 'okay' that he drive or when someone decides to go on a shooting rampage or really anyone else decides that the rule of law is really just a collection of meaningless words and they can do whatever the fuck they want.

                            As I said, I'm not an anarchist. Not an authoritarian either but if you're going to push me to choose between 'do whatever the fuck you want' and 'I am the law' well I'll choose the law because at least there there is some protection from abuse. Though my actual position is somewhere in the middle.

                            I'd like you to explain though how fire bombing any one let alone police carrying out a lawful injunction is okay though.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:45:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You support the police but not violence? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            caul, BYw

                            Even though the police use violence on a regular basis?

                            I don't believe it.

                          •  gods the police are much more then violence (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            with all due respect your bias is blinding you on this topic.

                            Having said that I'm walking away from this in general. I've said all I can think of and to go further would be to repeat myself. Besides I'm starting to get frustrated and it probably is only going to go down hill

                            So you have a good night AoT and I leave you last word, namaste

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:51:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Good night (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            duhban

                            We'll just have to continue to disagree.

                            I'm okay with that.

        •  But it is ok (12+ / 0-)

          For the police to shoot rubber bullets and use tear gas on peaceful protesters?  
          Riiight.

          Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

          by snoopydawg on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 06:54:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as defined by a court of law yes (0+ / 0-)

            personally speaking I think it's better then going in with lead bullets and batons but maybe you disagree?

            Now if you want to argue that the police should not have access to those tools you can. But that's a legislative/judicial argument and has no place here. Nothing the police did was illegal and in point of fact wait two weeks to try and find a peaceful solution speaks to great restraint on their part. And what did that get that? Well a giant mess that seems right now to be more the fault of the protesters then officers just doing their job.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 06:58:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Courts define legality, not what's "Okay" n/t (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, duhban, MichaelNY, caul, Laconic Lib
              •  I think we've discussed this before (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar

                in terms of nations and civilizations I don't invoke morality because what you consider 'okay' and what say a mass murderer considers 'okay' is unlikely to be even close.

                Granted that's a pretty extreme example but how about the secessionists back in the States? I mean they think it's okay to overthrow the government or just plain secede from the Union because we elected a black man with a funny name.

                I'm not going to argue the law is perfect, it's not (the same way anything human made isn't) but it's the best impartial way to keep civilization running.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:33:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The law isn't impartial (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban, MichaelNY, caul, Laconic Lib, OHdog

                  And you know it.

                  And you most certainly do invoke morality. That's what you're talking about when you say that this protest is bad PR. You mean that it's immoral. But instead of actually saying that you say that it's bad PR. "Bad PR" really means that it offends your values, and the values of those like you.

                  The real issue here is how we figure out among ourselves what is "Okay". And you aren't offering an answer..

                  •  :shrug: it's the closest to impartial we can make (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT

                    it and I stand by my statement that it is a lot better then any alternative including doing what ever you feel like cause you feel like it.

                    And no nothing in anything I've said here invokes morality. The PR thing is pure logic and rationality. The clearest and simplest and most effective path to the goal is to pay attention to how it looks because you can't garner sympathy if you think like a bunch of hoodlums by setting cars on fire.

                    Come on AoT you should know by know that I have no problem saying what I think no matter what response I am going to get. This isn't about morality and I encourage to reread above as to why it should never be about morality.

                    As to finding an answer, well I think that's a bit beyond the scope of the diary but the short answer is there is no easy answer to what is 'okay'. And thus that's why we have democracy because since there is no universal consent the next best alternative is the democracy.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:58:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No it's not the closest (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      duhban, KenBee, jpmassar, caul, BYw, Laconic Lib

                      I can think of numerous things that we could change that would make it more impartial. One: Change election day to a holiday and pay jurors $40 an hour for their time. And get rid of most drug laws.

                      •  eh none of that is the police's fault though (0+ / 0-)

                        Der Weg ist das Ziel

                        by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:14:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But it's still part of the institution n/t (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          duhban, caul, BYw
                          •  a completely separate part though (0+ / 0-)

                            That's like blaming Bob cause John punched you in the face.

                            You want those things to happen? Then you need to elect people to do so not blame the police.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:22:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, not seperate part (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            duhban, caul, BYw

                            The laws enforced are the core part of what the police do. The laws enforced are the entire reason the police exist.

                          •  and this is where I lose you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            because yes I get that but the fundamental balance and check against the police is they don't get to decide what those laws will or will not be.

                            The police didn't decide that pot should be illegal and beer shouldn't be. That was the legislative aspect of government.

                            :sigh: I really just don't understand how you can't see that.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:40:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So then what stops the police from (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            duhban, caul

                            "just following orders"?

                            I mean, we could totally set up a legal framework for genocide in the US. We have before. By your rationalization the police should just ignore the immoral aspects of the law because it's their job. Were the cops that rounded up the Japanese sent to internment camps acting morally?

                          •  I know I said I was walking away (0+ / 0-)

                            and really I am I just wanted to answer this question really quickly as I think it's important.

                            Like any institution that requires following orders any police officer at any time can claim an order is unlawful. If it's an unlawful order then they don't have to follow it. Of course iiit's a lot more messy then that but there's always been an 'out' for such things.

                            Of course some orders are easier to show they are unlawful then others but it's not like police are some unthinking entity fixated on breaking some heads.

                            If you want to respond to that, by all means but now I reall am walking away. You stay well.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 09:25:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  duhban (10+ / 0-)

              Have you ever seen the lumps and bruises rubber bullets leave?  
              And if they hit the eye, boom, blindness.
              They hit the head, possible skull fracture or traumatic brain injury.
              TBIs are horrible. I have been fighting the effects of mine for 37 years.
              A direct hit to the heart could cause a cardiac arrest.
              When protesters are being peaceful, there should never be a violent response.
              Look at what happened to Scott when a cop shot a canister at his head.
              This is their land they are trying to protect.
              They have tried talking butTPTB won't listen.
              Haven't First Nations been screwed enough?  
              Treaty after tresty was broken when corporations found resources on their lands.
              Quit defending police violence.

              Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

              by snoopydawg on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:42:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  first and mostly importantly (0+ / 0-)

                I'm sorry about your TBI.

                That said I am still waiting on your alternative, should the cops decide on their own if they want to enforce a law? Right now I see a lot of complaining but very little in the way of alternatives being offered.

                You seem to regard anything the police do as illegal, I don't. It's really that simple.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 09:22:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban, Bisbonian, caul, aliasalias, OHdog

                  What I am commenting on is their use of force.
                  Snipers?  For un armed protesters?  
                  Over kill
                  There were also snipers on roof tops during the OWS protests.
                  Those cops were being paid for by the banks who gave NYPD $4.9 million.
                  Who knows who the sniper represented.
                  Cops or mercenaries?  
                  Have a nice night.

                  Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

                  by snoopydawg on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 09:28:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the police have no idea what could happen (0+ / 0-)

                    so I'm sorry but I have no problem with snipers being present. I do have a very big problem with snipers acting unless there's actually a justification for it. Like it or not but snipers can be invaluable in a situation like this or OWS where in you might need to target one individual in a crowd without risking hitting anyone else.

                    But then again I hope that doesn't happen and you know what? I bet most cops would agree with me.

                    You do realize most cops will go their entire 15+ year career and never be involved in a shoot out? Never have to draw their gun?

                    You have a good night as well

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 09:35:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Lucky? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, jpmassar

      Yep...first nations there and here..who have had their land and culture stolen..who are less than the lowest harassed "immigrant" are so fucking lucky... Don't you wish YOU had their LUCK

      So your idea of luck for you might be  You winning the lotto..Your idea of LUCK for them "police did not respond with lethal force"  Hey bet ya love when the OPD took care of that Vet for Peace guy who was asking for it

      but hey Johnny..ya still got this..

      "I want a brave man, I want a cave man
      Johnny show me that you care, really care for me"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Health Care (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site