From Caledonia to B.C., law-breaking should carry consequences

From Caledonia to B.C., law-breaking should carry consequences
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Vancouver Sun

More than 70 years ago, Mohandas Gandhi laid down the ground rules for civil disobedience. These demanded that the passive resister show no anger, never retaliate, defend officials assaulted by other protesters and voluntarily submit to arrest.

A century earlier, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated how citizens should fight for a cause. As a protest against slavery, he refused to pay a poll tax and willingly spent a night in jail for his act of defiance.

Since February, members of the Six Nations Iroquois have illegally occupied a housing development in Caledonia, Ont. They have vandalized power transmitters, blocked rail and road traffic, stolen police vehicles and materials, assaulted Caledonia residents, police officers and journalists, and hurled projectiles and insults at non-native residents.

These actions go far beyond the principles of civil disobedience expounded by Gandhi and Thoreau; they are criminal offences committed without justification. On Tuesday, Ontario Superior Court Justice David Marshall recognized clearly that the rule of law was under attack and ordered that land-claims negotiations between the aboriginal groups, the province and federal government be suspended until the protest site was cleared.

Ontario's Attorney-General Michael Bryant immediately announced the province would appeal the ruling, indicating that his Liberal government is more concerned with political sensitivities than with upholding the law. The provincial government said it would abide by the decision pending the appeal; the aboriginal protesters said they would not.

The dispute dates back to 1841 when Six Nations chiefs agreed to surrender the lands for sale with the understanding the Crown would invest the proceeds on their behalf. But documents related to the arrangement were immediately challenged for misinterpreting the Six Nations council's intent, for ambiguity about the specific lands involved and for other irregularities. The land had been in private hands since 1848 until June this year when the Ontario government bought it from the developer in order to expedite a settlement.

But there will be no overnight resolution of a land claim that has simmered for 155 years. Meanwhile, protesters have been in contempt of court since last March when the former owner, Henco Industries, obtained an injunction to remove them. The Ontario government distanced itself from the only attempt by police to enforce the law, saying a raid in April -- in which 16 people were arrested -- was an Ontario Provincial Police initiative of which it had no knowledge.

Without government backing for law enforcement, the police have taken no action since then other than attempting to keep native and non-native protesters from attacking each other.

Whether the Six Nations have a legal claim on this land is for the courts to determine. Canada has a highly developed body of civil law under which these claims can be tested. This battle should be fought in a courtroom, not in the streets of Caledonia.

As we have seen in British Columbia with protests over highway construction on Eagleridge Bluffs and last year's teachers' illegal strike, being in contempt of court carries consequences. The Eagleridge protest was effectively shut down by police and its leaders jailed; the teachers ended their strike when their union's assets were frozen and penalties began to mount. The consequences for disobeying a court order have not been clearly spelled out for the Six Nations so far.

There is a fine line between civil disobedience and anarchy. Gandhi and Thoreau knew where to draw that line. Governments should make it clear that the rule of law will prevail and then give police a green light to enforce it.