Terrorism... in Canada
The Citizens of Caledonia website has been taken down because people are breaking the law, and not being held accountable for it. In the words of those operating the website:
What would you call someone who is openly harassing and threatening people? In this country, such conduct is considered a criminal act... and those who commit criminal acts are typically referred to as "criminals". Some people in Caledonia are going so far as to refer to the protesters as "terrorists".
This is wrong. I sympathize with the protesters, as there are few ways for the native community to get their message out when there are issues of dispute. But the methods being used, of interfering with daily the lives of uninvolved persons is just plain wrong. As I've said before, open the road partially, let some traffic through, and feel free to block any construction related traffic... then I think they would have a leg to stand on. As it stands right now, they are simply trying to instigate a confrontation. There cannot be any other explaination, and only a significant show of good faith on the part of the protesters can disprove that theory.
So, to support the people of Caledonia, and to ensure that the truth is still getting out, here's one image that was saved from their website... which, interestingly enough, hasn't been broadcast by the MSM...
Did you know that some (though few, granted) natives were damaging other people's property? Did you know that they threatened to beat members of the fire department if they attempted to put the blaze out? These are not the acts of "peaceful protesters", as they would have you and the MSM believe. And I have yet to hear an appology for this random act of vandalism... nor have I yet heard any commitment on their part to pay the costs for replacing this bridge.
More info over at SDA.
"Do to Intimidation Through This Site and Harassment to People Believed to be Connected With This Site, This Site is Closed for the Present Time."For shame.
What would you call someone who is openly harassing and threatening people? In this country, such conduct is considered a criminal act... and those who commit criminal acts are typically referred to as "criminals". Some people in Caledonia are going so far as to refer to the protesters as "terrorists".
This is wrong. I sympathize with the protesters, as there are few ways for the native community to get their message out when there are issues of dispute. But the methods being used, of interfering with daily the lives of uninvolved persons is just plain wrong. As I've said before, open the road partially, let some traffic through, and feel free to block any construction related traffic... then I think they would have a leg to stand on. As it stands right now, they are simply trying to instigate a confrontation. There cannot be any other explaination, and only a significant show of good faith on the part of the protesters can disprove that theory.
So, to support the people of Caledonia, and to ensure that the truth is still getting out, here's one image that was saved from their website... which, interestingly enough, hasn't been broadcast by the MSM...
Did you know that some (though few, granted) natives were damaging other people's property? Did you know that they threatened to beat members of the fire department if they attempted to put the blaze out? These are not the acts of "peaceful protesters", as they would have you and the MSM believe. And I have yet to hear an appology for this random act of vandalism... nor have I yet heard any commitment on their part to pay the costs for replacing this bridge.
More info over at SDA.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 2:26 p.m.
18 Comments:
At Sun Apr 30, 06:39:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Citizens of Caledonia - "This site has proven the power of the internet." ROFLMFAO - hadn't its power already been proven about 10 years ago?!? They're just catching up to it now in Caldeonia that it's a powerful tool?!?
"What would you call someone who is openly harassing and threatening people?"
Plenty of things. Some examples, depending upon perspective: "disgrustled", "a protester", "Blake"...
"Some people in Caledonia are going so far as to refer to the protesters as "terrorists"."
Then they just shot their credibility in the rear end. These are not terrorists, killing people to force an unresponsive government to act. They are engaging in civil disobedience, to be sure, and not adhering to the rule of law, but they're not terrorists. I'm not terrorized, anyhow, so if they are terrorists they're bloody lame.
"Did you know that some (though few, granted) natives were damaging other people's property?"
Gasp. Property destroyed in a protest? I've never heard of that before...
"And I have yet to hear an appology for this random act of vandalism... nor have I yet heard any commitment on their part to pay the costs for replacing this bridge."
Pay? With what? The people who did that don't have money to build a bridge. It's not something you can fork $400 over for and get a new bridge built. Last I heard, building bridges happened to be a rather extensive undertaking. And don't forget, if even the band is forced to pay restitution for the damages there (unlikely, since even you admit it was a "random" as opposed to specific and determined act of vandalism), it's just coming from taxpayer dollars anyhow.
At Sun Apr 30, 06:49:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
the web site has NOT been taken down. it has been conveniently altered to facilitate it being used to promote a sensational reaction from those out of the loop.
who owns citizensofcaledonia blog? why did they suspend comments on their blog concernedcaledonia.blogspot.com when the commentary was up to over 500 last i saw?
why do they choose to promote only one side of the story in their cleverly worded "Comments Received" section?
what cyber illiterate would write "this site has proven the power of the internet" after damning its value to being used as an excuse for intimidation and harassment? or is the power to sway public opinion its own reward.
welcome to the USE of the media in the hands of those who see freedom from the wrong end of the glass. (that's a spyglass for any of us racists out there looking to step out).
At Sun Apr 30, 07:34:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
You are a narrow minded person, i have been reading your blog for awhile now and if all conservatives are like you this country is in serious trouble.
Tim
At Sun Apr 30, 09:42:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Tim:
Care to provide any documentation, cogent argumentation, or helpful criticism? No? Thanks for coming out.
I may not see things straight down the line the way Andrew does, but at least give him the respect that's due for another person who puts their pants on one leg at a time, the same way you do. He may not be perfect, but if you see some area that needs addressed, at least lay down a meaningful presentation of what the problem is and how best to remedy it.
At Sun Apr 30, 10:17:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Tim, any suggestions for improvement are more than welcome... either in comments or privately via e-mail.
You're right, I am fairly narrow-minded... I see things more often in black and white than grey. I'd be happy to discuss some of the things that you've seen, and would like me to expand upon.
As I indicated last week, more of my posts are done when I have 5 minutes to comment on something that's come across my way. When I have more time (hah, that's a laugh) I hope to start doing things in more detail, with more thoughtful commentary, and less reactionary junk.
At Sun Apr 30, 10:32:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Good response, Andrew. I'll just respond to a few things and hope my comments have some dispassionate cogency to them.
"You're right, I am fairly narrow-minded... I see things more often in black and white than grey."
I would suggest that you see things in a fairly unnuanced manner. I think most things you discuss here are discussed on a fairly shallow level. I'd really be interested what you can produce once you start examining issues apart from an "us v. them" viewpoint and more from an academic viewpoint. I think once you do that, you're ready to make some real waves in terms of political ambition.
"I hope to start doing things in more detail, with more thoughtful commentary, and less reactionary junk."
I'm delighted to hear this, I think it marks a positive turning-point for your posting career.
I would also encourage you to start being a little more independent (again) and strong in your posts. While it's good to have the support of your community, often I wonder if you would write things that you knew Steve Janke, or Stephen Harper, or Peter Bolton would disagree with. It seems like you write with one eye behind your back, as though you wouldn't have written what you did if you thought aforementioned persons might disagree. I think you're a bright enough guy that you can show a little more independence and let yourself loose a little more. I learned that lesson this year at Raptorschat, where I've learned the importance of sometimes just stepping up and demolishing somebody when it's necessary and preparing to withstand the onslaught. Can you really stand alone if it's necessary? Before you respond "yes" and talk about your faith, ask yourself if your faith is strong enough to stand against those you view as mentors or spiritual fathers. It's not as easy a question to answer as it appears, Andrew.
I think until you're confident enough in yourself and in your decision-making ability, I think your political ambitions will be greatly curtailed and so will your writing here. Right now I think you're at the stage where you could make a great constituency office manager, but not an MP, but I think you have the potential to move up.
As I said before, go get 'em, bro.
At Sun Apr 30, 10:37:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Blake, part of the definition of a terrorist is The calculated use of Violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature. I think a number of the actions (i.e. threatening to beat firemen if they do their job) meet this definition. As to this being termed "civil disobedience" I have to disagree. Civil disobedience is defined as Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. I would say threatening officials (firemen), bullying townspeople and preventing others from earning a living does not fit this definition. I think the people of Caledonia got it right, the protesters should have stuck to the disputed property. The moment they turned their aggression on the people of Caledonia to achieve their goals the situation turned from being on of civil disobedience to one of criminal activity.
ottawa core, obviously you have never read the comments on some of the Six Nations Web sites. I have. They are full hatred and loathing coached in soothing phrases. Full of the righteousness of moral superiority of people who can do no wrong, who's every action does not have to be justified because their cause is right. At least the Concerned Citizens of Caledonia Web site put up information supporting their claims. As for it being "conveniently altered" I would guess that who ever is maintaining that site isn't very good at it. They probably assumed that changing the front page would "block" the rest of the site.
At Mon May 01, 01:05:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Blake, part of the definition of a terrorist is The calculated use of Violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature."
There is no standard, universal definition of terrorism anywhere. I believe you're providing an arbitrary uncited definition whose use of italics attempts to provide authority for it that doesn't exist.
"I think a number of the actions (i.e. threatening to beat firemen if they do their job) meet this definition."
That's right, that's part of a protest, disrupting other people's lives to make your point. If you were protesting something, do you think you'd just let life go on around you as though everything were normal, and let authorities do things to set back your protest? Not likely. And to honestly say that these people are "terrorists" because some toothless wonder over there threatened some firemen is asinine, a total flushing of your credibility down the hopper.
"Civil disobedience is defined as Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means."
Again, whose definition is this? Who says that civil disobedience must be passive or non-violent? I would point to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as civil disobedience with violence par excellence. And even if this definition weren't completely arbitrary, there hasn't been any violence, just threatened violence by a couple of hotheads against firefighters who were possibly going to try to salvage the bridge they didn't want to be salvaged.
"I think the people of Caledonia got it right, the protesters should have stuck to the disputed property. The moment they turned their aggression on the people of Caledonia to achieve their goals the situation turned from being on of civil disobedience to one of criminal activity."
Which people of Caledonia would that be? The ones who just claimed this week that they've discovered the internet is a powerful means of communication? Yeah, that's judgment I trust.
Now, I frankly am no big fan of the Six Nations' behaviour in this case, but you present a woeful and incredible argument against their actions in this case. The Six Nations protesters are not terrorists. Warning authorities not to intervene in your protest and burning a bridge is not the same as killing civilians just to send a point. If you can't keep your rhetoric between the foul lines, then it's time for you to pack up your glove and hat and go home.
At Mon May 01, 01:14:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"At least the Concerned Citizens of Caledonia Web site put up information supporting their claims. As for it being "conveniently altered" I would guess that who ever is maintaining that site isn't very good at it. They probably assumed that changing the front page would "block" the rest of the site."
See what I said about credibility? Here's a case where hitching your wagon to the "Concerned Citizens of Caledonia" is going to lead you right into a morass. These folks - whoever the hell they are, not quite brave enough to post their names on their blog - have clearly evaporated what credibility they have left and are trying to now play the martyr. I can't believe thinking people would point to them as having an ounce of anything of worth to say.
At Mon May 01, 08:48:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"you could make a great constituency office manager"
Funny you mention that... I've had thoughts about that post-next election. ;-) (half kidding)
At Mon May 01, 11:34:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Funny you mention that... I've had thoughts about that post-next election. ;-) (half kidding)"
It's something you wouldn't have any problem with doing at this point, and might allow you opportunity to eventually end on with a significant appointment as a ministerial aide or a Party executive position. Look into it.
At Mon May 01, 12:01:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Having a Full time, secure, well paying job that I actually like kinda deters me from looking elsewhere. ;-) For the moment.
At Mon May 01, 02:50:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Must be nice to have that dilemma.
At Mon May 01, 10:06:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Blake,
Terrorism, civil disobedience, look them up in the dictionary. I did. You should try informing yourself before giving an opinion. It will keep you from looking like a fool.
"Which people of Caledonia would that be? The ones who just claimed this week that they've discovered the internet is a powerful means of communication? Yeah, that's judgment I trust."
Hey now, prejudice based on other peoples ignorance of technology. Yeah, that's judgment I trust.
"Now, I frankly am no big fan of the Six Nations' behaviour in this case, but you present a woeful and incredible argument against their actions in this case."
You present a rebuttal based on ignorance. You present no facts or logic. You disagree based on uninformed opinion.
"If you can't keep your rhetoric between the foul lines, then it's time for you to pack up your glove and hat and go home."
Please look in a mirror and say this a few times. Hopefully it will sink in.
At Mon May 01, 10:35:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Blake gleefully rubs hands together at the thought of another chumpnut getting a short tour of Pwnageville.
"Terrorism, civil disobedience, look them up in the dictionary. I did. You should try informing yourself before giving an opinion. It will keep you from looking like a fool."
What dictionary would that be? How many dictionaries and encyclopediae did you check? How many legal journals did you consult? Do the definitions of the UN, the US authorities, and Canadian authorities completely agree? No, they do not. If you want documentation of that reality, you can - by all means - look here for evidence of that, but then, you should have done that before speaking and saved yourself a lot of embarrassment. You made up an arbitrary definition and now want to use "fiyah" instead of sound argumentation to get out of it, and buddy, you picked the wrong guy to try that on.
"Hey now, prejudice based on other peoples ignorance of technology. Yeah, that's judgment I trust."
Darryl Strawberry has shown more discernment in his life than you have in this post, so your credibility really grew wings and flew away a while ago. Not the best angle of attack to take, and could that comeback be any lamer? Please.
"You present a rebuttal based on ignorance. You present no facts or logic. You disagree based on uninformed opinion."
And that's not a response at all; I presented a direct interaction with what was being said, you haven't provided the courtesy to the rest of us. And, if you want to know what a good response would be, try demonstrating that an actual terrorist act actually took place, or that there is a specific and distinct encouragement to murder and terror from the Tribal Council. And good luck with that.
"Please look in a mirror and say this a few times. Hopefully it will sink in."
Who here is the one who equated Osama Bin Laden with these toothless wonders? Not me. That's inconsidered rhetoric, and I'm calling it. "I know you are but what am I?" is not a very convincing response, and the fact that you chose to end with it speaks volumes.
At Mon May 01, 11:33:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Blake, Blake, Blake,
Try to get a grip.
"You made up an arbitrary definition and now want to use "fiyah" instead of sound argumentation to get out of it, and buddy, you picked the wrong guy to try that on."
Try http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20disobedience. Not arbitrary. Taken from a source that everyone can reference.
"Darryl Strawberry has shown more discernment in his life than you have in this post, so your credibility really grew wings and flew away a while ago. Not the best angle of attack to take, and could that comeback be any lamer? Please."
Who ever. What ever. I noticed you didn't disagree with me.
"Who here is the one who equated Osama Bin Laden with these toothless wonders? Not me. That's inconsidered rhetoric, and I'm calling it. "I know you are but what am I?" is not a very convincing response, and the fact that you chose to end with it speaks volumes."
I give up Blake, who here is the one who equated Osama Bin Laden with the natives? I did not. I simply tried to point out the accuracy of what I have read on-line. Osama never entered my posts. Please elaborate on how the actions of the natives do not fit the definition of terrorism and do fit the definition of civil disobedience. I am seriously interested in your response.
I ended there because I did not have anything else to say.
At Tue May 02, 12:56:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Try to get a grip."
Already did, firmly around your throat on the last post. Or didn't you read it very closely?
"Try http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20disobedience. Not arbitrary. Taken from a source that everyone can reference."
Fine. Did you interact with the fact in the article I posted there are over 100 working definitions of the category "terrorism" in the world, and none of the major ones fits what these guys did to any degree? No. No, you didn't. But then, why would you, when language appears to be little more than your personal beeyotch at this point, right?
"Who ever. What ever. I noticed you didn't disagree with me."
No, I disagree heartily. There's just - as usual - nothing of much substance to interact with. I mean, how much parsing can one actually get out of, "Hey now, prejudice based on other peoples ignorance of technology. Yeah, that's judgment I trust."?
"I give up Blake, who here is the one who equated Osama Bin Laden with the natives? I did not."
Uh, excessive literalism, much? You were the one calling these guys terrorists. Most people think of Osama Bin Laden when we think of terrorism, and to apply the same category to these natives causes, simply put, severe cognitive dissonance. And if you are going to apply the category "terrorists" to guys who burn down a bridge and warn firefighters not to do anything about it, what can you possibly say about Osama Bin Laden?!?
"Please elaborate on how the actions of the natives do not fit the definition of terrorism and do fit the definition of civil disobedience. I am seriously interested in your response."
Which of the >100 definitions of terrorism would you like to use? That's the whole point: you are unnuanced in your usage of the category. Until you are, this conversation is a non-starter.
"I ended there because I did not have anything else to say."
Which was pretty much the way you should have started.
At Tue May 02, 08:38:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
jgriffin:
"ottawa core, obviously you have never read the comments on some of the Six Nations Web sites."
wrong.
"They are full hatred and loathing coached in soothing phrases."
you mean something like this comment from a "concerned citizen":
"...IF THESE PEOPLE YES THESE PEOPLE CAN STAND THERE FOR 57 DAYS OR WHATEVER AND NOT WORRY ABOUT GOING TO WORK AND NOT WORRY ABOUT DOING ANYTHING OF THE SORT AND THEIR MORTGAGES ARE GETTING PAID THEN OBVIOULSY THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING TO THE SOCIETY ... WE ARE PAYING FOR THEM TO STAND THERE... BECAUSE THEY CERTIANLY DONT PAY FOR WELFARE ... ITS OUR TAX DOLLARS THAT THEY COLLECT.... ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS GO AHEAD SIT ON YOUR ASSES COLLECT YOUR WELFARE AND LIVE IN YOUR HALF BUILT SHACKS"
let's get one thing straight. if my fear is caused by perceived harm i had done to my neighbours then i'll have to live with that. on the other hand, if i were truly concerned about my neighbour and the "squalor" they existed in i'd have to help them any way i could. if i don't, turn my back, and consider the government's manner of dealing with them is fair then i wouldn't have any fear. would i?
now, if i knew what the government is doing was wrong and i had to live in the affected area they administered (for me) and i had to walk past the continuing conditions degrading the area to ruin, i'd be a damned fool now wouldn't i?
the problem will be fixed when i can go next door or anywhere in my community and not feel fear from the ruination our government perceives as helpful.
Post a Comment
<< Home