NationStates Jolt Archive

From CTV news (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070331/native_manual_070331/20070331?hub=TopStories):

"Radical natives are included on the same list as the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah in a new counterinsurgency manual being prepared for the Canadian army.


The manual is in the final stages of preparation, but an early draft outlines tactics, including ambush, deception and killing, which the military could use abroad against military opponents -- and at home.


"The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims," the manual states.


"Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."


Phil Fontaine (http://www.firstperspective.ca/fp_template.php?path=20070402terror), the National Chief, had this to say:

"Any reference to First Nations people as possible insurgents or terrorists is a direct attack on us - it demonizes us, it threatens our safety and security and attempts to criminalize our legitimate right to live our lives like all other Canadians do. Just being referenced in such a document compromises our freedom to travel across borders, have unimpeded telephone and internet communications, raise money, and protest against injustices to our people," stated AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine.

"I am calling upon Prime Minister Stephen Harper to immediately and without reservation, reject and remove any references to First Nations from all versions of the training manual.""

Apparently, the Ministry of Defence is going to pull the reference.

Now, to be clear, this manual is being misconstrued as a counter-terrorism manual...but it is in fact a counter-insurgency manual. This difference is being brought up on the right to calm us down.

Nonetheless, the changes the Anti-Terrorism Act made to the various criminal codes means that terrorist AND insurgents are lumped together. There is already room in the Anti-Terrorism Act to lump in 'nationalistic' aboriginal groups with groups like Hezbollah. The fact that this trend is continuing is justifiably concerning to us.

Thoughts?

It's not helpful to categorize them as potential terrorists, that's for certain. There's probably potential for some extremism there, but as the article noted, it's not going to be motivated by ambitions of government overthrow or religious zealotry.. lumping them in with Hizbollah and the like is probably inaccurate and possibly insulting. Not sure how it is in Canada, but conflicts with Indians here are rare and usually specific to treatment by police, minor conflicts of law or land disputes.

Now, I'd like to blame this entirely on Harper's Conservative government, but this manual seems to have been begun during the Liberal government. However, Harper has been going after aboriginal organisations with his claws and fangs bared...slashing funding like crazy. The Conservatives have refused to apologise (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070328.APOLOGY28/TPStory/National) for Residential schooling.

The Conservatives are also threatening aboriginal groups (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/3928036p-4539467c.html) that plan to participate in the National Day of Action in protest of the massive program cuts.

So this manual being leaked is definitely not helping matters.

Counter-insurgency... counter-terrorism... either way, it boils down to restricting the ability of dissenting groups from soliciting funds to further their aims doesn't it? It's basically about shutting down any sort of legitimate ability to protest for any visible minority group or denomination.

Who gets to draw the line on the term ' through the threat of, or use of, violence.'? In this particular instance, have aboriginal groups in Canada prompted anything to remotely engeder this line of thought? Seriously...

Are we that concerned about a massive insurgency in Canada? Insurgency from what? We have all of the political mechanisms to deal with our disputes as is, including a legitimate right to protest, which native groups have been using.

It stinks of government pre-empting any embarrasing stand-off's with native groups in the future.

I was reading an article in a local paper earlier this morning, about how the Caledonia standoff is still in voters minds in Ontario, and is likely to reflect heavily on the upcoming election. But which way? Do the majority of the people side with the protestors, or the other residents of Caledonia? Even the wording of the article described it as 'an occupation' by the native group, even though it is native land to begin with. By labeling such an action as an 'insurgency', it gives government an ability to avoid such political 'embarrasments' in the future.

It's unwarranted, and it's disgusting.

The Conservative government hasn't just cut funding to aboriginal groups...here is an older article (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060926/spending_cuts_060926/20060926?hub=CTVNewsAt11) on some of the other programs they've cut. In particular, the Court Challenges Program helped to fund intervener groups and can only be repealed by statute. The Conservatives took all funding away, in effect quashing the program, nicely avoiding the political fallout of actually legislating it out of existence. So I don't want to make it seem as though I'm saying they've gone after us along.


However, in the wake of the Ipperwash Inquiry (http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/), one would hope the Conservatives would try to distance themselves from their Liberal predecessors in a more positive way than simply being more antagonistic towards aboriginal peoples.

The whole thing just pisses me off. One of the things I liked about the conservative angle, was the idea of decentralization and more power to provinces, etc. This should include reserves as well. Bringing government down to the local level should be our goal, and it seemed like it was part of the general plan, along with senate reform, etc.

Instead, we see an autocratic party that uses the federal system to keep themselves in power... again. We see a party that pulls funds from one sector that doesn't support it, and tries to win over another sector that will. It's the same old bloody story.

I. Hate. This. Shit.

I can't absolve the modern incarnation of the federal conservatives of unfair treatment to native groups. That much is apparent. I blame our system of 'the group with the most votes' wins the giant pot of gold, and gets to decide what to do with it.

There are better ways to do this sort of thing, than a different bunch of cronies with 4 to 5 year spending sprees.

Imagine how we feel.

And instead of dealing with that, they stir the pot harder, hoping we'll do something that will finally justify moving against us.

*poke poke poke*
*react*
See! They ARE violent! Send in the troops!

However, at the very least, the recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling which severed a section of the Anti-Terrorism Act helps shield aboriginal groups from so easily being lumped into the 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' pile. The section in question made a criminal act an act of terrorism if it was committed for religious, political, or ideological reasons. Please.

This MIGHT help us from being targeted for raising funds, if it extends to the changes made in the Organised Crime Act, which makes it illegal to raise funds for criminal and 'terrorist' organisations. You can see how slapping THAT label on us would effectively hamstring us financially. The OCA ruling might head that off...

And the general ignorance of people on the facts is amazing.

After the whole Ipperwash thing, there were still people thinking 'damn Indians shouldn't have been there.'

Then you have to point out the obvious to them; A government payed and trained sniper shot an unarmed protestor. Think about it. If it happened at the farmer's protest, it would be World War fucking III.

Imagine how we feel.

And instead of dealing with that, they stir the pot harder, hoping we'll do something that will finally justify moving against us.

*poke poke poke*
*react*
See! They ARE violent! Send in the troops!

However, at the very least, the recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling which severed a section of the Anti-Terrorism Act helps shield aboriginal groups from so easily being lumped into the 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' pile. The section in question made a criminal act an act of terrorism if it was committed for religious, political, or ideological reasons. Please.

This MIGHT help us from being targeted for raising funds, if it extends to the changes made in the Organised Crime Act, which makes it illegal to raise funds for criminal and 'terrorist' organisations. You can see how slapping THAT label on us would effectively hamstring us financially. The OCA ruling might head that off...

That's how a lot of things occur in one way or the other. Hardly ever is it a real outright threat, it's usually some sort of poking -- camels back, or flat out lying or set up. impov.

did the indian groups in question have a pervasive history of violence in the name of their group or ideology? If not, then I don't see how they could be lumped together with Hezbollah.

And the general ignorance of people on the facts is amazing.

After the whole Ipperwash thing, there were still people thinking 'damn Indians shouldn't have been there.'

Then you have to point out the obvious to them; A government payed and trained sniper shot an unarmed protestor. Think about it. If it happened at the farmer's protest, it would be World War fucking III.

Yeah, but if I go around saying this it's all, 'Angry Indian! Angry Indian!'

Bah.

did the indian groups in question have a pervasive history of violence in the name of their group or ideology? If not, then I don't see how they could be lumped together with Hezbollah.

The one group mentioned was the Mohawk Warrior Society, which has had clashes with law enforcement from time to time. They might even, in certain circumstances, be correctly labelled as organised crime. But they are not in any way, shape, or form, remotely similar to Hezbollah. Hence the confusion.

But then again, when looking at who might possibly be a target for state violence in Canada, it's only natural to look at the most disgruntled among us. Let's just ignore that we have damn good reason to be disgruntled.

did the indian groups in question have a pervasive history of violence in the name of their group or ideology? If not, then I don't see how they could be lumped together with Hezbollah.

I gather they're taking the concept of physical occupation of 'disputed' lands as 'threat of violence', and thus justification for the procedures presented in the manual...

You see, that way, they can nip the problem in the bud, before it becomes a campaign issue.

It never ceases the amaze me the absolute stupidity this 'terrorism' buzzword hysteria has created in governments, particularly the conservative ones who benefit from deflecting attention from their unpopular policies by creating a phantom enemy. I for one aren't fooled by any of this 'terrorism' crap.

It's nice (that's a euphemism for sickening) to see that racism and authoritarianism are on the rise once again in Canada as well in the US. I hope the Canadian people will not be as thick-headed and slow to react as my fellows in the States have been. This kind of government action is not just ham-handed and insensitive. It is a pernicious attempt to create a broad-brush weapon that can be used to crush all and any dissent, no matter where it comes from or why or when. And like US authoritarianism, it is exploiting the cultural/racial prejudices that already exist to divide and conquer the people. Non-Native Canadians need to see that this threat against Native groups is a threat to them as well, regardless of what they may personally think of Native causes or agendas.

The one group mentioned was the Mohawk Warrior Society, which has had clashes with law enforcement from time to time. They might even, in certain circumstances, be correctly labelled as organised crime. But they are not in any way, shape, or form, remotely similar to Hezbollah. Hence the confusion.

But then again, when looking at who might possibly be a target for state violence in Canada, it's only natural to look at the most disgruntled among us. Let's just ignore that we have damn good reason to be disgruntled.

Ahh, so you're native American? (or would that be native Canadian:) )?

Personally, I think if the MWS clashes with law enforcement, it's not terrorism by any definition. It causes trouble and people could get killed, but it's not terrorism. If they attack civilians, that's a whole different story, though.

It never ceases the amaze me the absolute stupidity this 'terrorism' buzzword hysteria has created in governments, particularly the conservative ones who benefit from deflecting attention from their unpopular policies by creating a phantom enemy. I for one aren't fooled by any of this 'terrorism' crap.


I, for one second don't think the governments (for the most part) really believe what they say and portray about terrorists. I think it's a great emotionally fueled topic that brings more drama to the table for them to freakin argue about, waste peoples lives and time on, put blinders over the peoples eyes(only give them a couple of choices.. all others are silenced) to further their own agenda and hopefully get more votes and money.. whichever side in the process. It's a tax payer paid.. live...deadly....machine. But I'm very skeptical.

Ahh, so you're native American? (or would that be native Canadian:) )?

Personally, I think if the MWS clashes with law enforcement, it's not terrorism by any definition. It causes trouble and people could get killed, but it's not terrorism. If they attack civilians, that's a whole different story, though.
First Nations, and here is where the line gets fuzzy.

Is a roadblock on disputed lands, denying access to non-natives 'attacking civilians'? It most certainly could be classed as such.

Raising funds to help support said roadblock...is that funding 'organised crime' or 'terrorism'? Though the Ontario Court of Appeals has severed the important clause of the Anti-Terrorism Act that would easily make it so, that court is not binding on the rest of Canada. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that such fundraising activities could be seen as helping terrorism.

Now this is all a bit far fetched perhaps...the political climate is not yet polarised to the point where most Canadians would support such applications of the new laws. However, if the Conservatives are successful in their antagonism, that climate could shift very radically.

It kind of raises an interesting point on the issue of 'raising funds' doesn't it? Do taxes count? Gaming rights?

Is our government funding an insurgency?!!

:eek:

Also consider that people like Tom Flanagan (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3137) are egging Stephen Harper on. (sorry for the Z-net article...it's hardly balanced)

He essentially believes that First Nation sovereignty would mean the end of Canada, and wants all Reserves abolished, and any Constitutionally entrenched aboriginal rights removed.

Yeah. Fucktard.

Also consider that people like Tom Flanagan (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3137) are egging Stephen Harper on. (sorry for the Z-net article...it's hardly balanced)

He essentially believes that First Nation sovereignty would mean the end of Canada, and wants all Reserves abolished, and any Constitutionally entrenched aboriginal rights removed.

Yeah. Fucktard.

What an ass... (read about the first half of the article at any rate)

I'm always amazed at how people can justify just eliminating the basis of our way of life; Rule of Law... not rule by the majority, or rule by what's convenient. The people who like to dismember the constitution for political convenience over one group, are the same ones who'll do it to all of us, for any reason.

What's so difficult about just letting people govern their own pieces of land? What's the difference between that and any other municipality, other than their relationship to the federal government?

My favourite part? Flanagan and his ilk like to talk about how racist it is to have Reservations, and how we need to be saved from such racist policies. It's a persuasive argument, for sure...to appeal to human rights in order to violate human rights.

But his message IS appealing to people who really don't understand the issues, or who simply resent us.

My favourite part? Flanagan and his ilk like to talk about how racist it is to have Reservations, and how we need to be saved from such racist policies. It's a persuasive argument, for sure...to appeal to human rights in order to violate human rights.

But his message IS appealing to people who really don't understand the issues, or who simply resent us.

It's highly persuasive. And it probably wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for native control over resource rights. (or less of an issue.)

Of course, in my case, you're preaching to the converted. I'm surprised no-one's come out to argue the government's case yet.

It's highly persuasive. And it probably wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for native control over resource rights. (or less of an issue.)

Of course, in my case, you're preaching to the converted. I'm surprised no-one's come out to argue the government's case yet.

Llewdor's probably sleeping, and since this isn't a US issue, there'll be a bit of silence, but it'll probably pick up tomorrow.

Well I'm glad it's coming out now, prior to the election. This can't be good press for Harper & friends, and anything bad where they're concerned is usually pretty good news for the entire country.

Well I'm glad it's coming out now, prior to the election. This can't be good press for Harper & friends, and anything bad where they're concerned is usually pretty good news for the entire country.

A year ago, I probably wouldn't have agreed with you. I definitely do now.

The sad thing is, I really doubt that this will register with the voters. If anything, it will push Harper's core constituency further into trusting the concept of a majority. The 'suburban voter' generally views native protests as an antiquated issue at best (or at least that's my take on it), so it's a non-issue to them. That, combined with a budget designed to appeal to them, and the fact that the sky didn't fall after a year in power, means I believe we might be looking at the 2nd coming of Harper.

That, combined with a budget designed to appeal to them, and the fact that the sky didn't fall after a year in power, means I believe we might be looking at the 2nd coming of Harper.

I'm glad you've seen the light with the Conservatives...and I have the sinking feeling you're right. A mighty wind blows from our southern neighbour, and it does Harper nothing but good. :(

I'm glad you've seen the light with the Conservatives...and I have the sinking feeling you're right. A mighty wind blows from our southern neighbour, and it does Harper nothing but good. :(

I have a feeling that vote-splitting between the NDP and the Liberals will shore that up as well. Hell, even a rising Green party could do that.

I see 2 achilles heels for the conservatives, politically speaking;

1) Afghanistan. The issue has kind of settled on to the back burner for most people. A spring offensive by Taliban forces might change all that, and Harper's insistence on staying there long term could hurt them and play into NDP hands.

2) The Environment. I think this is less of a hot-button issue than people think it is. But let's say that it is... Toronto is in the beginning of a major 'Greening' plan, thanks to David Miller's city council. Of course, there will be a cost to this; toll roads, property tax increases, etc. This may frustrate the 'environmental' vote in the GTA, then again, it may not. But the environment is not a strong suit for the conservatives. It all comes down to how much people care when it comes to their wallets.

Some of the other issues that people have noted in the past, i.e. the whole Emerson issue, 'selling out' on softwood, not following through on the 5% GST, etc. is quickly forgotten by most of the voting public.

So, it all comes down to a trust issue with Canadians. The demonizing that kept him out of power is mostly gone now. To many, he comes across as decisive and conciliatory. However, he's just a political master who knows how to play his cards, and keep his poker face.

Time will tell...

Maybe Steven Harper will get a chance to use the bully tactics he seems so infatuated with, and people will notice and get pissed off and vote anything-but-Tory. It could just be wishful thinking...

Maybe Steven Harper will get a chance to use the bully tactics he seems so infatuated with, and people will notice and get pissed off and vote anything-but-Tory. It could just be wishful thinking...

Well when the only real 'choice' is the Liberals...ugh.

With the Liberals, it was very much, 'better the devil you know'.

But they kicked us around too. No wonder our people are getting fed up again.

This government can't even say sorry. They'll grudgingly (perhaps) continue the Residential School restitution payments...

But they will not admit there was anything wrong with what happened. Fucking hypocrites.

Well when the only real 'choice' is the Liberals...ugh.

With the Liberals, it was very much, 'better the devil you know'.

But they kicked us around too. No wonder our people are getting fed up again.

This government can't even say sorry. They'll grudgingly (perhaps) continue the Residential School restitution payments...

But they will not admit there was anything wrong with what happened. Fucking hypocrites.

Parliamentary democracy is a dictatorship that functions through convincing the peons they have some degree of choice in the way the government works. Personally, the only Parliament I respect, is Funkadelic.

I doubt that Steven Harper and his ilk will ever apologize, because in their ignorant minds 'those savages should be grateful for the white man showing up and giving them culture'. They dwell in a world where capitalist faux-democracy is the highest natural achievement and anyone so blessed by having it foisted upon them should be forever indebted to them.

Personally, the only Parliament I respect, is Funkadelic. Do fries come with that shake? W00T!

I doubt that Steven Harper and his ilk will ever apologize, because in their ignorant minds 'those savages should be grateful for the white man showing up and giving them culture'. They dwell in a world where capitalist faux-democracy is the highest natural achievement and anyone so blessed by having it foisted upon them should be forever indebted to them.

In terms of Residential Schooling, the party line is...sure, the system was inherently abusive, and there were many instances of extreme sexual and physical abuse. But because the intention was to provide education...well, we can't say sorry for good intentions, can we?

In terms of Residential Schooling, the party line is...sure, the system was inherently abusive, and there were many instances of extreme sexual and physical abuse. But because the intention was to provide education...well, we can't say sorry for good intentions, can we?

I wonder if, by the same reasoning they'd be willing to let the lady who cut the arms off her baby off free. After all, Satan was inside of it and she was only trying to stop the Apocalypse. :rolleyes:

such as the Mohawk Warrior Society,

In the war of damn fine names for organisations, I think they are a on winner there.

In the war of damn fine names for organisations, I think they are a on winner there.
Many First Nations have Warrior Societies. However, there are traditional Warrior Societies, and those that arose during the Red Power (http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=1009) movement.

Note...Taiaiake Alfred is about as radical as we get...he IS the extreme end of the spectrum, just so you know the bias beforehand.

Many First Nations have Warrior Societies. However, there are traditional Warrior Societies, and those that arose during the Red Power (http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=1009) movement.

Note...Taiaiake Alfred is about as radical as we get...he IS the extreme end of the spectrum, just so you know the bias beforehand.

My thanks for the link.

My thanks for the link.

No problems. The government is specifically targeting the various Warrior Societies, because these are the most radical branches of the indigenous movement. This is a problem because not all Warrior Societies are created equal. Just because the Mohawk have been involved in organised crime, does not mean the Cree, Ojibwe, or Salish Warrior Societies are. Community funding is sometimes allotted to these societies to help with various programs...but if we all get painted with the same brush, it would become illegal to do this.

The upcoming day of action is going to be heavily attended by the Warrior Societies. Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs, has come right out and threatened an audit after the fact to ensure that no 'illegal' actions are funded...things like roadblocks, protests, etc. Reminds me of a time when it was illegal for us to raise funds in order to advance our land claims.

It seems like they might figure if they're going to be considered a terrorist group no matter what they do they might just go for it, which is not good.

It would strike me as rather extreme to target funds aimed at what are ostensibly acts of civil disobedience. I would have thought the "powers that be" would find it preferable to the alternative of covert paramilitary activity. Certainly it was the harsh (physical) action against civil protest that brought about armed struggle here the last time.

It seems like they might figure if they're going to be considered a terrorist group no matter what they do they might just go for it, which is not good.

Well yes, that's the worry. We are not a united front, we are many peoples, and there are MANY beliefs about how we should approach the situation. Really, it's like any sort of protest movement...you have the people working for slow change, and the ones who want to rip shit up.

And as with all protest movements, the government will point to the most active and then blanket label the entire movement as radical, unruly, and possibly violent. When they move against us again (and they will, it's almost a certainty), it will just incite more of us to join in ripping shit up.

Seriously, Harper is sitting on a powder keg here, and idly flicking a lighter.

There is already so much suspicion in our communities about provocateurs, and RCMP agents...in some places it's nearing the 70s-level of unease. 'Snitch-jacketing' was a common practice in the AIM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement) years, and it's getting quite bad again...RCMP 'leaks' of people working on the inside...just to get people working against one another.

I really don't like this shift...

It would strike me as rather extreme to target funds aimed at what are ostensibly acts of civil disobedience.
I agree, but Prentice's comments have pissed off so many people, and made it clear of the Conservative's intent to quash dissent, that those who normally would never participate in something like this, now will.

I honestly think that this is a deliberate attempt to escalate the situation to a point where Harper can sit back and say, 'see? I told you they were dangerous!'

This summer is going to be a bleak one, if the various (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/3932532p-4544413c.html) protests (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/03/20/bc-phillip.html) that are being planned do actually get kicked off. Railway blockades, road blockades etc...I can't see many people in the general population seeing these actions as just 'civil disobedience' and the possibility for real violence is certainly there.

A huge bone of contention is the total scrapping of the Kelowna Accord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelowna_Accord). We worked for YEARS on this damn thing, and yes, political stalling by the Liberals turned it into an election issue rather than a program they actually supported. However, that was a huge blow.

Harper's government has dealt us blow after blow, and I'm hearing rumblings among people who never would have been considering direct action before.

-WOW-

Reality check - the manual (for those who haven't read it) refers to ARMED, MILITANT native groups. You know, the kind that conduct firefights on reserves with each other, and smuggle in a wide array of small arms and light anti-tank weapons. They also smuggle booze, drugs, and tobacco. Also, in the manual, it doesn't advocate the army going in and crushing them, it points out non-violent alternatives. Some of you may want to refer back to the Oka crisis and the damn fine work done by the army there. In any other country, if an armed insurrection (native militants walking around with automatic weapons assaulting troops and threatening violent action against the lawful democratically elected government does count as insurrection) occured in virtually any other country, the result would have been a full out assault. In fact, a foreign officer who was at a base at the same time remarked to a bar full of troops one night when they were watching about it on the TV that in his country, they would given them five minutes then kill them.

Instead, troops maintained the perimeter, and helped negotiate and settle the situation. In fact, in one instance, a sick native protestor was brought under armed guard (escorted by infantry soldiers) to a nearby hospital, and the troops actually guarded him from the local police. The counter-insurgency manual would help prepare troops for the possibility of a similar situation, and getting rid of the native reference will only eliminate that possibility from being discussed in training, though I have faith in the senior NCOs and officers of the CF to prep the troops, and faith in the troops themselves to conduct themselves in a professional manner as they did at Oka.

If you wish to comment on something and offer an opinion, please, by all means do so. Just make sure it's an educated opinion. Oh, and for the record, there is no 'ministry of defence' it's called the 'Department of National Defence'. This may not seem important to some of you, but it shows how much research has been done and how much info the OP actually knows about this.

And for the record, YES, there are militant native organizations who have conducted actions and continue to do so that can be easily perceived as a threat of violence against the government and innocent, law-abiding citizens of Canada.

From CTV news (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070331/native_manual_070331/20070331?hub=TopStories):

"Radical natives are included on the same list as the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah in a new counterinsurgency manual being prepared for the Canadian army.


The manual is in the final stages of preparation, but an early draft outlines tactics, including ambush, deception and killing, which the military could use abroad against military opponents -- and at home.


"The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims," the manual states.


"Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."


Phil Fontaine (http://www.firstperspective.ca/fp_template.php?path=20070402terror), the National Chief, had this to say:

"Any reference to First Nations people as possible insurgents or terrorists is a direct attack on us - it demonizes us, it threatens our safety and security and attempts to criminalize our legitimate right to live our lives like all other Canadians do. Just being referenced in such a document compromises our freedom to travel across borders, have unimpeded telephone and internet communications, raise money, and protest against injustices to our people," stated AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine.

"I am calling upon Prime Minister Stephen Harper to immediately and without reservation, reject and remove any references to First Nations from all versions of the training manual.""

Apparently, the Ministry of Defence is going to pull the reference.

Now, to be clear, this manual is being misconstrued as a counter-terrorism manual...but it is in fact a counter-insurgency manual. This difference is being brought up on the right to calm us down.

Nonetheless, the changes the Anti-Terrorism Act made to the various criminal codes means that terrorist AND insurgents are lumped together. There is already room in the Anti-Terrorism Act to lump in 'nationalistic' aboriginal groups with groups like Hezbollah. The fact that this trend is continuing is justifiably concerning to us.

Thoughts?

I think states need to be aware of any and all types of terrorists.

I think states need to be aware of any and all types of terrorists.

And what is your definition of terrorism?

Armed insurrectionists blocking major routes of transit and threatening military action against the government by flaunting automatic weaponry (illegal) and other illegal weapons. Unarmed protestors are good to go, but when you assault military and LE personnel and walk around packing an impressive illegal arsenal...well, it may not be terrorism per se, but definately something that the armed forces should be aware of and trained for.

-WOW-

Reality check - the manual (for those who haven't read it) refers to ARMED, MILITANT native groups. You know, the kind that conduct firefights on reserves with each other, and smuggle in a wide array of small arms and light anti-tank weapons. They also smuggle booze, drugs, and tobacco. Also, in the manual, it doesn't advocate the army going in and crushing them, it points out non-violent alternatives. Some of you may want to refer back to the Oka crisis and the damn fine work done by the army there. In any other country, if an armed insurrection (native militants walking around with automatic weapons assaulting troops and threatening violent action against the lawful democratically elected government does count as insurrection) occured in virtually any other country, the result would have been a full out assault. In fact, a foreign officer who was at a base at the same time remarked to a bar full of troops one night when they were watching about it on the TV that in his country, they would given them five minutes then kill them.

Your glowing report of the handling of the Oka crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_crisis) is hardly shared across the board. There has been much national and international condemnation of the manner in which this situation was dealt with. Essentially stating that, 'well gosh guys, in other countries the army just would have massacred the whole lot of them, so you should be happy that we don't do that in Canada' is really quite something. I don't give a shit what foreign troops have to say about it...and neither should you.

By the way...firefights on reserves, smuggling guns/drugs/etc...guess what...that's already covered in various Organised Crime legislation. Calling it, or referring to it as an insurgency is a real stretch of the term. Is the army going to go into the ghettos of T.O and start negotiating 'non-violent alternatives' to gang violence? No. Because that is not their job.

Do you honestly believe that railway blockades will not lead to native protesters being labelled as 'insurgents'? It has become the definition of terrorism (despite the severance by the Ontario Court of Appeals of that particular aspect of the definition)...criminal acts committed for religious, political or ideological reasons. And you are saying that the army should be absolutely cleared to move in. Oh no, they won't massacre...they'll just be dealing with insurgents. All is well. Bullshit. This sort of thing is within the mandate of the RCMP, NOT the army.

Instead, troops maintained the perimeter, and helped negotiate and settle the situation. In fact, in one instance, a sick native protestor was brought under armed guard (escorted by infantry soldiers) to a nearby hospital, and the troops actually guarded him from the local police. The counter-insurgency manual would help prepare troops for the possibility of a similar situation, and getting rid of the native reference will only eliminate that possibility from being discussed in training, though I have faith in the senior NCOs and officers of the CF to prep the troops, and faith in the troops themselves to conduct themselves in a professional manner as they did at Oka.Don't worry. There was no manual pre-Oka either, and the military was absolutely ready to move against us at that time. I'm sure they'll be able to do it again without reference to First Nations groups being in that manual.

Oh, and for the record, there is no 'ministry of defence' it's called the 'Department of National Defence'. This may not seem important to some of you, but it shows how much research has been done and how much info the OP actually knows about this. Hey there, bucko...there's no Ministry of Education, no Ministry of Indian Affairs either. They all have their own specific names...but they are ALL accurately described as Ministries...seeing as how they are all headed up by Ministers.

And for the record, YES, there are militant native organizations who have conducted actions and continue to do so that can be easily perceived as a threat of violence against the government and innocent, law-abiding citizens of Canada.
Like the people of Burnt Church (http://www.nben.ca/aboutus/caucus/archived_caucuses/ffa_archive/fishery/timeline.htm)? Six Nations/Caledonia (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/)? Stoney Point/Ipperwash (http://www.execulink.com/~hkoehler/stonsups.htm)?

All of these situations involve 'threats of violence against the government and innocent law-abiding citizens of Canada' according to some. So for the record, our legitimate struggles, both in the courts and out of them, are not something this nation needs to start (or continue rather)using military force to deal with. There are political solutions, and the Harper government is refusing to consider them.

Armed insurrectionists blocking major routes of transit and threatening military action against the government by flaunting automatic weaponry (illegal) and other illegal weapons. Unarmed protestors are good to go, but when you assault military and LE personnel and walk around packing an impressive illegal arsenal...well, it may not be terrorism per se, but definately something that the armed forces should be aware of and trained for.

No one is planning on coming armed to the blockades.

Still terrorism in your books?

Never said there weren't crimes committed against Aboriginals either. Don't assume things. I'm simply defending the military and the inclusion of armed militant groups in it's counter-insurgency manual. No, I didn't say that blocking a railway wouldn't lead to -unarmed- native protestors being called insurgents by certain individuals. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the army is going to actually consider them insurgents and roll out the Leos.

Yes, if an armed group of native militants (or any armed militants) engages the police or military then the army should indeed go in and clear them out, if the threat warrants it. If one or two open fire, then no, if theres a concentrated assault on LE or military positions. Yes, go in, clear out the enemy, seize any and all weapons. No, there won't be a massacre of innocents, there will be a massacre of anyone who tries to take action against those troops, and I don't feel any bit of sympathy for them. You engage the army, you're going to pay for it. Thankfully, this has never happened, and a part of me thinks (and all of me hopes) it never will, but its the army's responsibility to be prepared for all possibilities.

You're right, there was no manual pre-Oka, and the army did just fine, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be teaching the next generation of soldiers what possible threats they should be prepared for.

For the record, I only think military force should be brought in for situations where there is a significant threat of violent action against citizens and/or the government in which the police may not be able to handle the situation. This has been done many times before, and is regularly done when police (including tactical units) are unable to match the firepower of a possibly suspect, in which military units (generally because of their armoured vehicles) are brought in to assist. If a group of natives (or ANYONE) is amassing an arsenal of assault rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, and light anti-tank weapons, and threatening to use them against the government, then yes, by all means, send in the military to establish a perimeter. If engaged, defend themselves, if engaged en-masse, wipe out the threat.

No one is planning on coming armed to the blockades.

Still terrorism in your books?


Did I refer to Caledonia, or to the summer protests? No, I didn't. I referred to Oka, where there WERE armed personnel. Armed with military weaponry, rocket launchers, machine guns, etc. Who killed a Quebec police officer. Now I'm not defending the actions of the Quebec police, because they handled it badly. Nor am I defending the actions of the federal government in it's treatment of natives. Not by any means. I'm defending the use of military force against armed insurrection by any group. I'm defending the military's initial decision to include ARMED, MILITANT, native groups in its counter-insurgency manual.

Well when the only real 'choice' is the Liberals...ugh.

That more or less sums up my frustration with the current political situation. There's something innately wrong when every single leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has also been a Prime Minister. If Dion doesn't get the spot, he would be the first.

They just chose the better brand name.

It never ceases the amaze me the absolute stupidity this 'terrorism' buzzword hysteria has created in governments, particularly the conservative ones who benefit from deflecting attention from their unpopular policies by creating a phantom enemy. I for one aren't fooled by any of this 'terrorism' crap.

Conservative governments are not the only type that go overboard with this. I remember past actions against groups in the US were under the Clinton government. Actions such as Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind. Which then created the Oklahoma city bombing. So I wouldn't paint one government type as creating hysteria over another. Government is government and they do not like it when anyone challenges the authority that it has over the populace. From white separatist to religious cults to Native American action groups it is all the same in their view.

]Reality check - the manual (for those who haven't read it) refers to ARMED, MILITANT native groups. You know, the kind that conduct firefights on reserves with each other, and smuggle in a wide array of small arms and light anti-tank weapons. They also smuggle booze, drugs, and tobacco.

Firefights amongst one another, smuggling weapons, smuggling booze, drugs, etc., that's all elements of organized crime. We don't use the military to deal with organized crime. Everything you just described, happens in the streets of downtown Toronto as well. I haven't read the manual, but I somehow doubt it mentions dealing with urban gangs as an 'insurgency'. Because of the political nature of the native groups involved in similar activities, they are getting special attention.

The problem is in the wording. 'Threat or use of violence' is a very broad term, giving the government the legal mandate to do pretty much whatever they want. It's one thing to train our troops in how to deal with an insurgency while conducting peacekeeping missions abroad, but to start insinuating that political groups with legitimate grievances are 'insurgents', highly politicizes the issue.

Also, in the manual, it doesn't advocate the army going in and crushing them, it points out non-violent alternatives.

Anyone have a link or anything to the manual? Didn't the quoted article mention the terms 'ambush, deception and killing'? I'm sure the manual includes non-violent alternatives as well, but the fact that the manual mentioned native groups as a potential target of such methods, heavily implies that it was the intention of the manual.

Obviously, if we have situations where armed groups are firing automatic weapons and anti-tank weapons we need to escalate. I haven't seen anything in our history to support the need for such a thing.

Also, the manual itself pointed out that '"Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence." So, the problem that it wanted to address, was natives using coercive force to settle affairs on land that is legally theirs. It's a legal dispute between two factions, one of which has a legal monopoly on force, even though the contractual arrangements were made between sovereign equals. The problem isn't native groups interfering with innocent civilians, it's the government interfering with land that isn't theirs to begin with.

And what is your definition of terrorism?

violence targeting civilians. At times terrorism can be used against Governments as well.

violence targeting civilians. At times terrorism can be used against Governments as well.

That definition is still a little loose. If I assault someone, does that make me a terrorist?

Assuming you mean 'deadly violence targeting civilians for the purpose of advancing a religious or political goal' as your definition of terrorism, I still don't see how native groups fall into this category. Even if we take the police officer shot in Oka, that would be an act against the state, between two different factions.

(I suppose one could argue that since reservations don't have a recognized nation status, that they therefore can't attack 'goverment' employees and institutions without being terrorists. Attacking military/police objectives doesn't fall under the term 'terrorism' for me.)

Firefights amongst one another, smuggling weapons, smuggling booze, drugs, etc., that's all elements of organized crime. We don't use the military to deal with organized crime. Everything you just described, happens in the streets of downtown Toronto as well. I haven't read the manual, but I somehow doubt it mentions dealing with urban gangs as an 'insurgency'. Because of the political nature of the native groups involved in similar activities, they are getting special attention.


Uh..yes, actually, we do use the military against organized crime if they prove to tough for police to handle and military assistance is requested. Military is also used against unorganized crime as well. Remember the mounties that got shot at that Alberta farm not too long ago? Guess what, after they took fire, the army was called in, and advanced on the position with armour since four mounties had just been killed.

Why aren't street gangs listed? Well, they have yet to do what the Mohawk Warriors did, and they don't have as big an arsenal in a concentrated force as the Mohawk Warriors do, or at least did. They are split into dozens, or even scores of competing factions, and have not presented a unified front and unified action against the government or citizens.

Yes, it happens in the streets of Toronto as well, and how do guns get to Toronto in the first place? One of the ways is via native reserves, or so it is alleged and suspected, and in some instances, proven. Not all weapons, but many do. Military force is not used against gangs in Toronto, because gangs in Toronto have not illegally seized land, set up fortified positions, amassed hundreds of fighters with hundreds of automatic small arms and anti-tank weapons and thrown back a police assault. I assure you, if such an event happened, I have no doubt that all the various army units in Toronto would be called up and deployed.

As for escalation, you're right, there hasn't been a situation in which there has been such an escalation. In Oka, the military came in after a failed police assault at the request of the provincial government, and since there hadn't been an escalation enough to warrant an assault, there wasn't one. They maintained a perimeter and maintained security.

As for ambush, deception, and killing, this generally refers to other insurgent groups overseas. However, these are perfectly legitimate tactics to be used against armed native radicals, or ANY armed radicals here in Canada if the situation warrants it. For example, if it is known (either through intercepting comms, or other means) that said radicals are going to launch an assault on a police, government, or civilian position, then I consider assassination to remove the leadership, or an ambush of said force to be perfectly legitimate.

The problem is in the wording. 'Threat or use of violence' is a very broad term, giving the government the legal mandate to do pretty much whatever they want. It's one thing to train our troops in how to deal with an insurgency while conducting peacekeeping missions abroad, but to start insinuating that political groups with legitimate grievances are 'insurgents', highly politicizes the issue.

I think you don't understand what this document is, it is not by any means a government policy paper, or piece of legislature. It is a military training manual that troops read while at a training course, it does not by any means dictate government policy, nor does it in any way label unarmed, innocent protest groups as insurgents. It means threat or use of violence, as in what happened again at Oka, a gathered paramilitary force ready and willing for bloodshed. So, again, NOWHERE does it say perfectly legitimate protest groups are insurgents, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

It doesn't dictate that people trying to change things at the reserve level are insurgents, armed groups attempting to overthrow/overpower the lawful authority are insurgents. As well they should be.

Again, it doesn't say there TERRORISTS, it says they can be considered insurgent groups. The military's primary role is not to deal with domestic issues, and it has never on its own gone ahead and done so. They were used at Oka only because the provincial police could not handle the situation and the provincial government requested the military to intervene.

It doesn't dictate that people trying to change things at the reserve level are insurgents

Well, let me paste that quote for you again.

'"Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."

The issue, is that the natives dare use violence, or the threat of violence (and that is the point here) as a means of defending their legal rights.

That's right, legal rights. We're talking about a manual that, until recent complaint, was going to include native groups as an example of insurgency. But how can it be insurgency on land that is rightfully theirs? The government has a monopoly on the use of force, and if native groups even imply the use of force, on land that is legally theirs by treaty and law that predates the founding of our nation, then they are branded as 'armed insurgents'.

The problem, isn't the creation of a manual to deal with insurgency. The problem is that they were going to make the implication that they would use these methods to deal with 'the threat of force', which is highly debatable. It would give the pretext of any government to call in the armed forces because they believe 'the threat of force' is imminent.

I know it's not a legal mandate, and that it's only a training manual. But don't you think that labelling any group, First Nations or not, as a potential enemy for the military to handle, a dangerous one?

People trying to change things at the reserve level through peaceful, legal means. No. People trying to change things by doing what they did at Oka (thankfully it didn't get out of hand). YES, that IS an insurgency. Had they simply sat on the land, set up barricades, and hold the position while having protests outside the provincial legislature (or having sympathizers do that) would have been fine. But they did't, they set up fortified positions, deployed illegal weaponry, fought with police, and members flatly stated they were going to kill troops. There's the video of the Mohawk Warrior approaching a Van Doo soldier, staring at him, heading back to his position, and on the way telling the reporters he wanted to see their faces before he killed them.

He didn't, and neither did anyone else, but that definately doesn't help their image any.

And no, labelling groups as potential enemies is not a bad thing, it's an undoubtedly good idea as it informs the troops as to what potential enemies they may one day face and allows them to familiarize them selves with said enemies before any conflict erupts. It's called being prepared, and is without a doubt a good thing. We did it with the Soviets don't forget.

As for threat of force, I have some measure of faith in the government, or at least military leaders, that they aren't going to start kicking down doors in a reserve because some kid threw a rock at a police cruiser. Believe it or not, the government isn't a bunch of fascists looking for an excuse to go in and invade reserves. I'll agree that the conservatives aren't treating natives right, but there hardly about to wipe them out either.

People trying to change things at the reserve level through peaceful, legal means. No. People trying to change things by doing what they did at Oka (thankfully it didn't get out of hand). YES, that IS an insurgency. Had they simply sat on the land, set up barricades, and hold the position while having protests outside the provincial legislature (or having sympathizers do that) would have been fine. But they did't, they set up fortified positions, deployed illegal weaponry, fought with police, and members flatly stated they were going to kill troops. There's the video of the Mohawk Warrior approaching a Van Doo soldier, staring at him, heading back to his position, and on the way telling the reporters he wanted to see their faces before he killed them.

He didn't, and neither did anyone else, but that definately doesn't help their image any.

And no, labelling groups as potential enemies is not a bad thing, it's an undoubtedly good idea as it informs the troops as to what potential enemies they may one day face and allows them to familiarize them selves with said enemies before any conflict erupts. It's called being prepared, and is without a doubt a good thing. We did it with the Soviets don't forget.

As for threat of force, I have some measure of faith in the government, or at least military leaders, that they aren't going to start kicking down doors in a reserve because some kid threw a rock at a police cruiser. Believe it or not, the government isn't a bunch of fascists looking for an excuse to go in and invade reserves. I'll agree that the conservatives aren't treating natives right, but there hardly about to wipe them out either.

I'm not implying that government is fascist either. I am implying that governments do all sorts of shady things to keep themselves in power and to avoid political embarrasment. Witness Mike Harris' remarks 'Get those Damn Indians out of the park', followed shortly thereafter by an unarmed protester being shot by a sniper. That's without a manual that describes armed native groups as the enemy. We didn't live side by side with the Soviets. It's not a fair comparison.

Better to have a manual that says, 'this is how we deal with insurgency', rather than 'this is how we deal with insurgency, and here's what an insurgent looks like.' This is particularly antagonistic, and obviously people thought so, since they took those remarks out of the manual.

Your references to Oka, are about a people who tried all the legal methods to resolve their dispute, and were ignored by the government that is supposed to defend those interests. When they occupied the land, and police tried to eject them (from land that was legally theirs), they defended, with force, land that was entitled to them by treaty, which is protected by the highest law in the land. You may think of that as an 'insurgency', because some of the more vocal protestors uttered death threats to a military force that was intent on pushing them out of their legally entitled territory. I don't.

Now, if those groups were occupying land that wasn't theirs, that's a different story entirely, isn't it? But natives defending sacred burial grounds vs. a military defending the development of a golf course? I'm not going to count that as an insurgency. But if you tell our soldiers that it is, and a politician deems the 'threat of force' may compromise their political position, you bet I have a problem with that.

I can assure you that not a single soldier who stood at Oka gave half a damn about the Golf course. They gave a damn about the dead cop and his family, and they gave a damn that several hundred individuals decided it was necessary to amass an arsenal and threaten their government and their fellow citizens.

Had the blockade at Oka been a peaceful one, like, say, Caledonia, that would be different. Instead, it was an armed encampment.

Different insurgencies may have to be dealt with in slightly different ways. For example, Mohawk Warriors and Hezbollah have notably different methods, motivations, and tactics. Thus, they would require differing methods in completely different environments to deal with. So, no, teaching counter insurgency in general is not the only thing we should be doing, teaching troops what possible insurgents they may one day face is a good thing, as it prepares them to act different in differing environments against differing enemies.

I fully said that the government has mistreated and mishandled natives. It was not a military sharpshooter at Ipperwash, it was a police sharpshooter. That was an entirely different situation that has no bearing on the military, since it was a provincial government and provincial police action.

The counter-insurgency manual is a military training tool intended to make troops aware and prepare them to face possible insurgent threats. Mohawk Warriors, based on what they did at Oka, and what could have happened, do indeed constitute a possible opponent, however unlikely such a scenario is to happen again.

They added this to the manual, then a group of media outlets and native groups blew it way out of proportion and once again attempt to demonize the military. They have fabricated blatant lies, and made accusations about things that have no bearing on the issue and are totally unrelated. They have done another insult and disservice to every man and woman who wears the uniform and serves this country and the values for which it stands. They have effectively spat upon all the hard work and sacrifices made by the military, and are attempting to restrict the training materials that the military develops for its own use when they have no business being involved in such decisions.

And with that, I'm off to bed. I'll check back in the morning.

Iragiya; you can have respect for the men and women in the armed forces whilst not having respect for the politicians that decide policy.

Oka was over 200 years in the making. The Mohawk were following their laws, and were told not to fire a shot until fired upon. There is disagreement on who fired first, but the shooting definitely happened whilst the police were trying to rush an armed encampment. If the Mohawk hadn't armed themselves, they would have been ejected, and they would have lost yet again.

As it was, their stand in defense of their burial grounds caught the attention of the public media and now no-one is devoloping on those grounds. Local media, most of Canada's media in fact, was largely critical of the mohawk. Not so for most of the rest of the world.

The shooting of a Quebec police officer was obviously unfortunate. These things happen in the line of duty however. And once the military were called in, the biggest offense by the mohawk, was a barrage of water balloons. Labelling this group as an insurgecy in 2005 was definitely a mistake, and rightly corrected.

We can create effective training policy for our soldiers, without targeting specific groups in Canada for that training.

They have effectively spat upon all the hard work and sacrifices made by the military, and are attempting to restrict the training materials that the military develops for its own use when they have no business being involved in such decisions.

I wanted to touch on this subject in particular, because you drifted from a well-thought out and presented argument to a passionate one.

Military enforces policy, it doesn't dictate it. It's every business of the public, including media and politicians, to address issues that it deems inappropriate in the military. You may seem it as being good common sense to prepare the troops for every possible confrontation. Someone else might deem it common sense not to antagonize people, and thus create the need for the military presence in the first place. The military is the servant of the public, not the other way around.