  |
||
        |
 |
(E-mail responses taken and adapted from the CBC site Indepth: Fishing Fury /Your Space)
Jolene Marr
If the governments of Canada would only respect the treaties and deals that had been made, there wouldn't ALWAYS have to be a conflict to fight over what is legally ours. "OUR HOME AND NATIVE LAND?" The governments didn't learn a damn thing from the Oka Crisis of 1990. Thanks, Alison McGregor Kahnawake, Mohawk territorry
Hello. When I heard what was happening in Burnt Church my heart was broken in two and scattered across the waters for the people of this place. Have they fought enough all these years? Or is that Canadian government trying to remove these people by killing them right in front their own children to make all of mankind keep hating? This government of Canada has forgotten who saved who way back when they first came. Sad is this day for many people of this world when the government is trying to make silent of these great people. Ronnie Pfaefflin
I am not from Burnt Church, but when I heard about the the events in Burnt Church, I had this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach. I don't know if it was fear or worry about what may happen to the young Burnt Church fishermen, or even to the eldlers, women and children of that community if violence errupted. I am far removed from the area, but my heart and prayers are with the people of Burnt Church. I have been watching the news and reading the comments posted on this site. It is interesting to hear the views from both sides. I am a Mi'kmaq woman in my fifties and my life has not been centered around the fishing industry. Yes, my father was a traditonal native fisherman. During the spring, summer and fall he went out with a torch and spear on the lake for eels and cod. If he was lucky , he would get few dozen eels and some cod in a week. If he happen to spear a salmon or trout, which was not very often, he would literally crawl through the woods to bring it home. I remember when he would wake us up about three o'clock in the morning so we could eat the salmon he had cooked. In the late fall or early winter, he would spear eels through a hole in the ice. What we didn't eat he would peddle from door to door in the non-natvie community. I guess that is what the government considers " moderate living" for a native person. I had to smile at the comments of the lady who referred to "our season, our conservation" and "the last viable fishery in our community." Yes my dear, I do agree that all these are yours and they have been yours for the last two hundred years or more without any threat or interruption from the native people. It is perhaps ironic and somewhat amusing, the conservation methods that the non-native fisheries are now so concerned about have not really helped the fishing industry. If these methods had been successful, then all kinds of fisheries would be thriving now. Why not give us a chance to work out conservation measures that we all can use to provide "moderate living for our families." Evidently non-native methods of conservation did not work. Native people had been fishing on this continent for a long time before the Europeans, and we did not deplete the fisheries. Fishing industry was in good standing when the non-native fisherman took over. I am truly grateful and proud of the leaders of the Burnt Church band for not signing the agreement. I feel that the Burnt Church leaders are respecting the individual rights of the people within their community. The non-native community seems to have the impression that every native person who wants to fish will get boats, traps, and a license to fish on their own. The government of Canada does not recognize the native people as individuals. We are bands, our individual rights do not exist. We have no "say." The government signed agreements with the bands not with the native people. Some bands chose to buy few boats and gear, others want to build 3.5.million dollar wharfs. Meanwhile we stand in line again as individuals without any equipment hoping that maybe this time we can get a few weeks of work if the chief and council thinks we should. Every resource in the native community is controlled by the band. What else do we want? You tell me. I guess I can get my husband to climb the mast of the "Blue Nose" but I am afraid he would freeze by the time anyone would notice him or else some one may just shoot him down for trespassing on private non-native property. I am quite sure though that no government representative would take the time to arrange for him to present his case to Parliment. Wouldn't that be something? Best of luck to all of you in Burnt Church my prayers are with you. Josephine Peck P.S. Situation has changed. DFO took the traps. The so-called "civilization" came to our land by the way of Europeans who raided, stole and slaughtered men, women and children in the name of greed. Not much has changed in the last five hundred years. The minister of fisheries mentioned this civilization in his speech last night along with his determined plan to raid the waters near Burnt Church at any cost. Thank heavens the people of Burnt Church have enough sense, values and morals to see that no amount of money or any treaty is worth a even a single life. Each individual has a limited capacity to eat so much food, to wear so much clothing and to occupy so much space. At the end, if we are not cremated we will be entitled to have six feet of dirt on top of our bodies. Eventually we will all become a part of the resource of this land. So my dear friends, fish your hearts out in our cold, cold waters of our land. Guess where we will be. We did offer to join you. See you in our dreams.
You guys wanna argue about who has the right and not the privilege? Despite your attitudes thus far on "yourspace.com" I don't care to get into it with you. Education and understanding is all about comprehension. It is without a doubt that we – and when I say we I mean the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamoquoddy – have a right that the rest of you don't have. I'm not sorry, you are not our responsibility. That group that sits down and shapes this country, those are your caretakers. However, if you and your families need to eat and have shelter we will welcome you as always. I assume you'd do the same for us, too. But that's beside the point. I'm hoping this message gets onto this website because from what I've read so far it can't be too hard to post this one. I can't believe the anger in all you people. Don't you understand? Our struggle isn't with you is about our RIGHTS as Aboriginal People and Canada's responsibility to us. Before you were even ignorant enough to write from a PC, our ancestors agreed upon something and that exchange alone helped to shape your existance right now. You wanna talk about who owes who what? Let's not go there. One more thing, and this is fact, there are no rights gauranteeing anybody clean water, or fresh air, but WE are gauranteed the RIGHT, not privilege, to hunt and fish for food purposes and commercial purposes for a moderate livelyhood. That my friends is GUARANTEED. If anything WE are going to be the ones telling you how to hunt and fish, because if we don't then you and the rest of Canada are threatening that RIGHT by overfishing and over harvesting and GOD knows what else. Just wait and see. I swear someday the Aboriginal People in this Canada are going to change the way we all live. Do not argue with us, argue with your local representatives and change it. Until then, I'll see you all in court.
Franklin J. Molley What the Burnt Church Mi'kmaq are doing is their natural activity for generations untold. Then came the non-natives who claim they are experts in conservation after killing off the buffalo, cod, damaging the environment and so forth. They are imposing their laws deriving from the British political system upon these Mi'kmaq, saying that they are illegally fishing and are also not conserving the resources. Who gave the British Crown the permission to proclaim that their way is justified more that the Mi'kmaq who have done so for generations past? Furthermore, when the treaty was made, it also falls on the hands of the Mi'kmaq nation as well with their laws, Canada must understand that the indigenous nation are separate nations with their laws, too. The constitution, which was British law to begin with, is only for the non-natives because when it was created it was made by the British parliament for their people living during colonial times and the indigenous nation were not included. Roger Deranger
As a native myself, I have to express that I support the Burnt Church community. For the reason is that I have five children and they are our future. We need to care for the children now because if we don't make a stand in what we believe in, what future will our native children have? Thank you for your time. Joanne Sappier
The government and native leaders must meet together and discuss the treaties especially about fishing rights and how it impacts or how it is defined in today's standards. These treaties are old and must be renegotiated because there will continue to be conflicts in all areas of treaty rights. Within the last ten years, we have seen more confrontations with native people and more are standing up for their rights in what they believe is the right recourse and understanding of treaties. These treaties are very important to native people because everything else has been stripped and something written such as treaties is believed the white society uphold. The government should uphold their part of the treaties. Lucie Edwards
Hi I just wanted to say that I don't know why the non-natives are making a big deal of this, because look at how many fishermen they have, 98% non-natives have their licences and there are just about 2% of natives. Non-natives have thousands of traps and there is only a certain amount of traps on the reserve for everyone. All that we want to do is to keep our rights that we have had since 1752. In that many years, why hasn't anyone said anything about our treaty rights? But when Marshall had won his case in the highest court in Canada, that's when it was recorginzed. Do you honesty believe that the natives would wipe out the fish, lobster,snow crab, etc.? Well, I don't think so because they would know when to stop. Jill Googoo
I think the fisheries minister is making a huge mistake trying to set rules in this country regarding native rights. He should have a good look at himself and check to see which part of the world he is from. It may say on paper that he is a Canadian, but to the eyes of the native people, he is not. Randy White
Hi My name is Chief Marie Gabriel Newman. I lived in Newfoundland. I agree what our peoples are doing. We as Mi'kmaq peoples were here way before the white man were ever known. Who gives the white man the right to tell us what fish we are aloud to have? Havent they taken enough from the Indian people over the years? They have stripped us long enough, of our rights in all things that our forefathers have given us. I say keep up the fight and I pray our Creator is watching over you all. God Bless. Chief Marie
The Burnt Church fishery is about treaty rights not the Prime Minister's lackey Herb Dahliwal, who has been trained liked Pavlov's dog, RE: Canadian governmet oppressive conditioning against Aboriginal people. I thought Sikhs (like Dahliwali) were against oppression but look what happens when someone is ignorant of Aboriginal natural law and the treaties among First Nations. Mix that with an overwhelmingly ignorant Canadian public and now you have government-sanctioned oppression and racisim at its best. I think it is high time international courts and the United Nations get involved especially since now there is a recently developed "Aboriginal Secretariate" in the United Nations. Aboriginal people need protection from the United Nations from legislated oppression from anyone in Canada including the worst oppressors – the Canadian government. I am a Mi'kmaq woman who has travelled the world and I cringe at the escalating violence against my people by the Canadian government. Other Aboriginal tribes/First Nations must support the Mi'kmaq by their physical presence and this includes the leadership of all 633 First Nation Chiefs. But where are they????? At least Matthew Coon Come, our National AFN Grand Chief, showed up in Burnt Church..It shows true leadership when the physical presence of all First Nation Chiefs, including Hereditary Chiefs, make an effort and show their physical presence in Burnt Church to show solidarity in this treaty right situation. ,After all, it was the Mi'kmaq women fron Burnt Church who started this fight for treaty rights in Burnt Church and the Aboriginal male leadership across this country should pursue the matter not take a stand "behind the scenes." Do some "real groundbreaking work" for a change to fight oppression. Welalin,
The government should stay clear of confrontatiom. RESPECT the treaties from the past. Gerard Grady
It seems everyone only took notice and are only concerned with the conduct of the police officers in Burnt Church. The issue goes beyond that. At the root of it is the issue of "rights." Who has the right to fish and how much? It seems the (white) government believes it has the right to dictate to the First Nations just how much they can and cannot fish, under the pretext of conservation and the environment of course. May I say, that the Native Peoples have lived here for hundreds of years and hunted and fished the entire continent and never lacked for an abundance of game nor ever harmed the environment. I believe all this changed when the Europeans came and took away the land, & etc. Now in their (the European's) self-righteous attempt to save the environment, the natives must pay the price. Where is the justice? Even if the Europeans were to give back ALL of the land to the Native People (which realistically will never happen), they can never sufficiently compensate these people for the evil they have done to them. I hope the natives get total exemption to fish (ironically they're not even fighting for that much), they earned it. V. Ramlall
"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" I have watched, listened, and read more news clippings on the fishing dispute that is going on in Burnt Church to last me a life time. I have read all kinds of opinions that are written on this page as well. Let's start at the beginning… # 1 I must relate to you that I am a white man. # 2 I do today as I have done for the last twenty-five years, do live on a First Nations Reserve. With this being said, let's cut to the chase, let's call a spade a spade. In this case it is the federal government. The minister of fisheries Mr. Herb Dhaliwal has been signing interim fishing agreements with some First Nations bands especially in eastern Canada, not all bands, The ones that don't want these agreements or don't sign them are his target to prey on, plain and simple. He continually tries to use these bands against each other to try to prove his point by using comments like 21 out of 32 bands signed the agreement. This is a cheap tactic, trying to use natives against natives. Not all bands are interested in these arrangements, by now you know this or you should, and by sending in DFO officers to, in your words, enforce the law by destroying property and endangering peoples lives at the same time is only making the sisuatition worse. If you were in Burnt Church instead of hiding out west at caucus meetings or in Ottawa you would see first hand what you are doing by your actions. You're "fed up." Gees, I wonder how every First Nations person in Canada feels today especially after watching on national television your men breaking your so-called laws hand over fist in an attempt for you to get your own way. To me you should resign your position as you are not worthy of having it. If I were you, I would hang my head in shame for the way you have openly chosen to disrespect these people and every First Nations member in Canada. Is it because you have a piece of paper signed that you are able to do what you want and have no consequences to pay for it? In the home of your ancestors, is that how things are done ? There are a few comments written on this page about the past and how it is different now. Well I'm sorry to have to remind you that if it weren't for these First Nations people's ancestors, the first Europeans that landed here would not have survived in this country to start off with. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. At the same time, I'm sure they didn't have or need any paper signed by any of us to fish, hunt or farm. I have personally read papers that were signed in the 1800s and the bottom line is consistent on each document these people will be "free" to hunt, fish, and grow crops and travel "and not be molested" in any way. So for the forefathers of this country this was good enough and it is how they wanted it. This is not good enough for you MR. Dhaliwal! Well, there are treaties from 1760 that give these people the right, the Marshall case also says they have the right. So what do you want? A lightning strike and the waters to part before you get the picture? Stop molesting these people. The bottom line is, if you like it or not, these people have the right to fish and they wish to exercise their right as their fathers and forefathers before them did. It is their way of life. Simple enough to understand, isn't it? The fishers in the neighbouring communities don't like the idea and never did. Are they in poverty or losing their homes? When the federal government offers to "each" of them ten thousand dollars because their traps weren't in the water at this time as compensation they refused it saying "we don't need it." Doesn't this tell you anything besides the fact that they are not poor and that racism is top priority on the Miramichi? That's pretty easy to see especially among the non-native fishers and that is sad to see. As for these so-called DFO officers, it is common knowledge it was policy for the government to hire the poachers in New Brunswick and put a uniform on them and pay them to keep from poaching. No doubt there was some fall out from this that all of Canada witnessed on television when these goons were ramming native boats and destroying property. The ones that did this as well as MR. Dhaliwal should be charged for their actions, they did this under his direction in a pretence of upholding the law. Just because they have a piece of paper signed doesn't mean they are above the law. And finally, how could the First Nations people in Canada manage to survive on this land for thousands of years now if they didn't know what they were doing especially when it comes to fishing and hunting? Mr. Dhaliwal's argument just doesn't hold water. These people aren't ruining anything. History tells us so and ignorance and arrogance shouldn't be getting in the way especially when a way of life is involved. Reid Gilker
Why can't the Burnt Church native people be left alone? The amount of fishing they do for their own community livelihood doesn't even compare to the vast quantities that the non-native fishing companies so greedily take year after year. Fishing is their life... their culture... they cannot stop being Indian just because the Canadian government decided to set it's own limits. T. Martin
This letter is in response to one written by Dave Geauvreau I needed to respond to Dave Geauvreau's comment that the government used "extreme force against them." That is after calling in the army to deal with the "rebellion." I suppose that there is no law in Canada except the law of the strongest. And it is clear that this law is the one that some Canadians desire to be used. I would suggest that one helicopter flying low over Burnt Church and strafing those rebelious natives would solve this issue as simply as the simple mind that suggested it. Edward Garbitt
September 11, 2000 After reading an article on Archbishop James MacDonald's apology for the Members of the Anglican, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and United churches regarding their responsibility for "500 years of suffering" of aboriginal people, I wonder: what about Leonard Peltier today? September 12, 2000 is his 56th birthday, and he has been incarcerated for more than 24 years for protecting his people. Amnesty International and many others regard Mr. Peltier as a political prisoner in the U.S., who should be immediately freed. Leonard Peltier was fraudulently extradited from Canada in the mid 1970's. The records of the Minister of Justice in Canada and the US's FBI show evidence of the corruption in high levels of government and law enforcement. Besides the use of a fraudulent affidavit for his extradition, the prosecution in the U.S. withheld key evidence from the jury showing that Leonard did not kill anyone, and that the only reason that he was there was to protect families from a deadly Pine Ridge planted regime that handed over 1/8 of the reservation for gold and uranium mining on the day of the shootout that left two FBI agents and a young Native American dead. Why is there not a stronger outcry against this continued obvious injustice and threat against democracy? Please consider consider acting in support of Leonard Peltier for his executive clemency petition to President Clinton to be free and home with his family and people. For more information, check out the The International Office of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee site. Jonathan Mark
I do not speak for aboriginal people, I speak for myself. I am a by-product of a residential school. I grew up with a family that is presently living in total chaos on a dialy basis. We often hear people experiencing war, but the war we live to tell of is happening right in our own backyards. The enemy is not overseas but in our fragile homes and communities because of what the residential schools did to our fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers. I am appalled that these church groups get off making "token gestures" about how they treated indigenous First Nations people of this country. Clifford Roy Merasty The Pas, MB
This letter is in response to a letter written by James of Powell River In 1613 AD, a Beothuk uprising killed 30 French fishermen in Newfoundland. A few Mi'kmaq and French took revenge for the deaths. The English would later "claim" that the French paid the Mi'kmaq a bounty for Beothuk scalps and caused the extinction of the Beothuk in 1829 AD. It would not be until the late 1900's that the truth would be known, that it was in fact the English savages who caused the extinction of the Beothuk. Any Beothuk that came near an Englishman was shot on site. Beothuk women would rip open their shirts to expose their breasts, showing the English that they were women, and should not be shot, but – bang – the English savages had no respect for human life. Women were shot with babies in their arms, while running away, and after being shot, those English savages would cut the babies heads off. And then they had the nerve to call us savages. The English had paid only a couple of Mi'kmaq bounties for Beothuk scalps, but this was the only Mi'kmaq involvement in the extinction, and among other Mi'kmaq, those couple of Mi'kmaq were disgraced for what they did. Even working with the English savages was such a big disgrace. All school teachers now teach the truth about the English role in the extinction of an entire people. More information about the Mi'kmaq can be found at Mi'kmaq Net. Maqtewekpaqtism Millbrook, Nova Scotia
I just want to say that I support the actions demonstrated by the First Nation people of Burnt Church. I also want to encourage the people of Canada to get information of treaties made in trust nation to nation. How is it that, in this day and age, one nation thinks they are above the other? First Nations people, before any white person was in sight, had their own goverments, their own laws, their own languages, their own "WAY OF LIFE." In short, "CONTROL" over their own destiny. These privileges, enjoyed by First Nations people for thousands of years, are rapidly being limited, in some cases destroyed. WE WANT THEM BACK. Thank you for this space in which I was able to share my feelings and thoughts. Darrel
(This letter is in response to one written by Kii yaa tuk (Keith Hunter), which can be found by scrolling down.) Kii yaa tuk, excellent post, I'd like to expand on it. "First and foremost, ... [we] believe in equal rights for all, and special privileges for none. At the present, we feel the native Canadians enjoy certain privileges, such as special gaming rights and tax exemptions unavailable to the rest of Canada's citizens. Recognizing that previous governments have perpetrated policies in the past that have caused social and economic hardship to the native peoples, we believe these past wrongs should be rectified and an equitable solution to all disagreements should be sought through open dialogue. Sounds reasonable? The fact is, this statement could have been made by any number of organizations in Canada today. Unfortunately, the policies that arise from this line of thinking will, if implemented, spell the doom of First Nations in Canada. Lets deconstruct the message of "Equal rights for all" in the light of openness and tolerance that most Canadians value. Don't we have one law in Canada now? And shouldn't everyone be equal under it? The answer to the first question is "no" and to the second: "Whether you are treated equally depends on how "equal" you are in the first place." Canada is far from being governed by one law. For example, the Quebec Act of 1774 affirms the use of French Civil Law in Quebec (as opposed to English Common Law in the rest of Canada). The Constitution recognizes minority linguistic, religious rights and rights for the disabled. The Constitution Act of 1982 makes sure even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not frustrate our attempts as an enlightened society to raise those who are less equal to the same level the rest of us enjoy. Although section 15(1) of the Charter states every individual is equal before and under the law without discrimination, it is followed immediately by section 15(2): "Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." And section 25 makes sure even the Charter is not "construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada." The majority of the Canadian public recognizes that native rights, treaties and self-government issues merit special attention. The tradition of civil political discourse in Canada has led to a renewed vision of native rights and that vision is enshrined in the 1982 Constitution, section 35(1) which states: Equality is not the same as treating everyone the same. What is new however, and quite outside the ideals expressed by the Constitution (and most Canadians), is a small, vocal and increasingly influential anti-native rights movement in Canada. Even modest gains made by First Nations in the courts and at negotiation tables have triggered a shrill reaction from its members. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the groups who make up this movement have frustrated further gains by First Nations and, in some cases, have completely stymied the recognition and implementation of aboriginal rights and claims. This is having a devastating effect on First Nations who are depending on the recognition of their rights and the settlement of their rightful claims as a way to regenerate their shattered cultures and economies. Perhaps the best response to the cry for "equal rights for all" and "one law for all" has been made by Judge Murray Sinclair in the report of the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry: "Systemic discrimination involves the concept that the application of uniform standards, common rules and treatment of people who are not the same constitutes a form of discrimination. It means that in treating unlike people alike, adverse consequences, hardships or injustice may result." In other words, when you treat people who are unequal as though they were equal, the result is discrimination. Since J. Sinclair was talking about native people, the discrimination that results from treating them the same is racial discrimination. Adrian Nadjiwon
This issue is a complex issue, which was just recently characterized by the non-native fishermen today. "No one should ask ordinary, hard-working inshore fishermen to pay the price for decades of national ineptitude towards one of our founding peoples," Belliveau said. The best way for this issue to be dealt with is through rational discussions with an intelligent and well-respected moderator. That was suggested by the AFN National Chief Mathew Coon Come. His suggestion is that of non-violent conflict and the moderators he named were all prominent and well-respected Canadians. He very easily could have named a third party moderator that was not Canadian and who would not have a vested interest in the outcome of any agreement. This alone is a compromise. How would Canada look if a moderator from Germany, England or France were asked to make a decision on how Canada implemented treaties? Mr. Dhaliwal was offered an excellent opportunity to do it the Canadian way through "intelligent compromise" however he has continued to tow the hard-line and be adversarial, holding out the shield "rule of law." My question is does he know what the rule of law is? Maybe he should ask the Liberal Justice Minister Anne McLellan. For surely she would at least read him the definition from Black's law dictionary which states that the rule of law is "the supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary power (citizens must respect the rule of law). Mr. Dhaliwal charged Mr. Marshall for fishing for eels worth $800 out of season. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the treaty was recognized law under s. 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and overturned the conviction. Canadian citizens are not simple, we know our rights, we understand our obligations. By quoting legal phrases and then sending out physical force, Mr. Dhaliwal is not improving the image of Canada nor is he encouraging peace, order and good government. I guess that I have thrown around enough legal jargon. I hope that Mr. Dhaliwal sits down at the table with his legal advisors, the leaders of First Nations and their legal advisors and come to a peaceful solution soon before the "rule of law" becomes a tarnished phrase. Sincerely,
I have been reading the comments concerning the Mik'maq Nation's excercise of their treaty rights and have seen repeated posts stating that many people advocate that there should be "one law" for all people. This strikes me as particularly odd since the only time the non-native people seem concerned with justice is when the use of terms and concepts of "equality" benefit the non-native population. Where were your voices for equal treatment when the residential boarding schools continued in Canada until very recently? Where are your voices for equal treatment when it comes to laws which deny First Nations people equal access to natural resources? Where are your voices for equal treatment when Canada is rated as first in the United Nations for countries to live in but for the indigenous people of Canada it is ranked 64th? Equal treatment under the law would mean that the First Nations governments are equally entitled to management of First Nations resources as Canadian federal and provincial governments manage Canadian and provincial resources. Equal treatment under the law would mean that treaty negotiations taking place would be negotiated with good faith by the federal and provincial goverments and that these governments would not encumber resources and exploit resources which are the very lands that are being under negotiation. And equal treatment would mean that the DFO, RCMP, etc., etc. would protect the entitlements of First Nations people without the use of violence and force which has been repeatedly employed against them. It is time that "equal" ceases to be defined as "the same as" and that equality not used as a tool of convienance only when it benefits non-native people to do so. There is no equality in such an application of that word. General Sheridan once wrote that after all the atrocities that had been done to the Indian People that the only policy left for the United States to follow was total genocide because if total genocide, down to the last "nit and lice" of the Indian people did not occur, then General Sheridan stated this would come back and haunt the future generations of the ones who committed these atrocities. First Nations peoples from the Arctic to Chile have remembered, have survived, and continue to struggle daily with colonialism in so many forms in so many battlefields. Some of these battles are in court, some on land, some on the seas, and always with the justification and acceptance of those who stand to gain from the continued attacks upon the First Nations people and the unsatiable desire to control and take the resources of Turtle Island away from the First Nations. A person could say this is because of greed, but, the longer this continues, a simple explanation of greed cannot suffice. The drive to completely dispossess First Nations people of resources, of land, of community, of self governance, of culture, of language, of identity itself has to come from the fear of retribution which General Sheridan knew someday would come. It is time the war against First Nations ends. And it ends by recognizing the pure and simple truths that treaties made have a mandatory obligation to be honored, and aboriginal titles which were never ceded be recognized by the Canadian and provincial governments. Self-determination, and the simple respect one nation extends to another nation, has to be seen not as a threat but as the path to ending the centuries of war which only perpetuates these struggles and passes them onto the unborn generations. When will Canada end its war against the First Nations? Kii yaa tuk (Keith Hunter)
I am very disappointed and disturbed the way this whole situation has erupted. Seeing DFO boats ramming into Mi'kmaq fishing boats and fishers, comments such as the Mi'kmaq having an unfair economic advantage, natives allowed to break laws, akin to a spoiled child, etc. One must look at how this whole situation escalated to its present point. For many generations the Mi'kmaq enjoyed a tradition surrounded by water and fishing. Then, without going into an obvious history lesson, the Supreme Court of Canada makes a small step in re-affirming rights that were already bestowed upon the Mi'kmaq people. Aside from all the other First Nations' peoples in Canada, the Marshall Decision declared that the Mi'kmaq had unique rights by virtue of their existence as First Nations since time immemorable, or before the dominion of Canadian or the arrival of Europeans. These rights do not mean that First Nations people are any more privileged than the rest of Canada...or better than other Canadians. They simply mean that they are allowed to hunt, fish, trap, gather medicines, etc. Also, the Marshall decision stated that from these unique rights they are allowed to make a modest living from the sale of trapped fish (ie. fur trade). It does not mean that they are allowed to make millions upon millions of dollars while Canadians have to sit helplessly watching as the resources are exploited at an unsustainabe rate, unable to take part. Ironically, the Mikmaq and all other First Nations in Canada have lived this exact scenario for centuries. I don't believe the Mi'kmaq are getting rich off of the traps they are "illegally" setting. It has been known as common knowledge throughout the Maritimes that illegal fishing takes place regularly without the DFO and other authorities flexing their enforcement muscles. What do you think the reaction from the Canadian public might have been had the DFO exercised the same recourse as they have toward the Mi'kmaq? I think it is time that there be some understanding with regard to the whole fishing dispute. Yes, there is a concern for the conservation of aquatic species. However, the people that grant licences for the 3 million or so traps to non-native fisherman in the Atlantic are the same ones that caused the demise of the cod fishery. Let us put into perspective the several thousand traps the Mi'kmaq want to set. This dispute did not happen overnight and because the "natives are restless." Have we not learned the lessons from the Oka experience that resulted in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that called for greater and equal economic opportunities for Aboriginal people in Canada? Charles Gauthier
The Maritime Fishermen's Union seems to consider themselves a third order of governance by their statements. Economic self-sufficiency is a very important issue for all people. What complicates the issue is the history of law making in this country. The term "rule of law" seems to be one of the issues. It indicates the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law, fairness and both consititutional and actual guarantees of basic human rights. The treaties settled between the Crown and the First Nations people were signed before the Constitution in some cases and after the Consitution in others. The legal system should be transparent, fair and not influenced by the state authority. Was the Supreme Court influenced by the state authority in this case? Were the treaties taken into consideration in this case? What is fair? I do know this, the First Nations of this land did help the people that immigrated to America from Europe hundreds of years ago. Elaine Johnston
As a First Nations person, I would like to commend the Burnt Church people for their courage and for continuing to exercise their inherent rights that have been recognized. For far too long, our inherent rights and authorities have not been recognized or respected by the non-First Nation society. Our rights are constantly under attack, and it is felt that we should be the same as everyone in this country. The simple fact is that we are not the same as every one else. Hence the treaties and treaty relationship that formed this country. People tend to forget that this country was founded upon the lands of all the different tribes of First Nations people across this country. We made treaties to co-exist peacefully and to share in the collective wealth of these lands. Instead, the First Nations people are held in third-world conditions. The First Nations people have treaty rights and the government has the obligation to fulfil these rights. The First Nations people just want their fair share of the resources that have been denied to them. If this occurs across this country, you can guarantee that the First Nations people across this country will flourish. Jaret Cardinal
I listened to Cross Country Checkup on Sunday, and the most illuminating comment I heard on a complicated matter was, where is the Department of Indian Affairs? This is a treaty issue, and the DIA should be in there protecting native rights and helping to work towards a solution that is satisfactory to all parties. Also, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be reminded that the Marshall decision confirms he is responsible for regulating the fishery only within certain quite strict constraints, which include consultation with native groups. Christine von Bezold
Well, we are seeing how eloquent some prejudiced, small-minded people can be... "First Nation Peoples have the treaty rights to live off the land and sea…" Now they may not have had motorized boats back then (neither did we) and they may not have had guns (neither did we) but they were capable of sustaining and caring for each other... they had pride and were greatfully treated as equals, by those who needed them (us) at the time. It may not be convenient nor lucrative to those who see these people take their share of the fishing... but that's just too bad. Everyone in this country has the right to earn a living, if they are capable and be allowed to retain some pride and self respect. To those of you who are not having to live off welfare, I say give them a chance, and to those who would use this as another reason to hate, I feel sorry for you, it could be you in their place. Have a little grace and a little bit of love in your hearts for all involved. Anne W.
I am addressing this to everybody who writes about how the natives ate no lobster or fished them or had traps. You are grossly misinformed and ignorant, if you believe that Native people, didn't fish lobster. If I remeber correctly, white people, when they first came here, looked at lobster as parasites. It was considered poor man's food. People who ate lobster were usually very poor or native. Rich people looked down on them for eating "bugs." The only reason lobster became popular is because of the war and everyone was hungry and some white guy was all like "well, it's not so bad." Next thing you know every white guy from here to the west was eating it. Yes we had ways of harvesting them. So research your facts, before you assume too much. Ignorant people assume things and are often to lazy to do research to support thier completely unfounded ideas. My advice to you would be get your facts straight. Sacheen Pointe-Derange
I believe people who are non-native that are fishing should take a look at themselves first before judging other people. These non-native fishermen say they are becoming homeless/poverty etc.etc. They should take a hard look at their means before their needs and wants. By the way, how much do they report every year on the wages for their income tax and how much is not reported that goes like a slimy snake under the table? As for ecological repercussions, the damage is already done from the non-natives raping the land and not giving back to the land. As Homer Simpson would say: "Duh!" It seems to me when the natives have a chance to get involved whether is be fishing, hunting, cutting in the woods, etc. they are given the cold shoulder and criticized for trying to help themselves do what the non-natives have been doing for many years without prejudice of raping the land so freely. I seriously think these people should take a serois look in their background because, as the saying goes, when you point the finger there is always two pointing back at you for the mistakes you make and don't want to take a serious look at yourself. I think this is called denial! We all have lessons to learn because we are not perfect. Remember, the only perfect one was Jesus and he was punished on the stake. We have to try our best for perfection but we will never be perfect. We have to try and learn from our mistakes and hopefully correct them and move forward and not to stay in a rut. We are all put on this earth for a reason so we should respect other's opinions, relegions, beliefs, etc. This world would be a better place to live in if we could all follow these simple principles. Beckie Labillois
To whom it may concern, I am sickenened from the negative attitude and actions that are displayed towards the people of the Burnt Church reserve by the DFO in New Brunswick. They have exercised their racist inclinations deftly. The reason that New Brunswick is inundated with Native defiance is the fact that most New Brunswickers are initially inundated with racism. I am a die-hard environmentalist and am against fishing of any kind by any kind of fisherman. The other fact is that you (so-called multicultural CANADIANS) do not have the same attitude towards the non-native fishermen who have very much depleted all species of marine LIFE for decades. Ironically and pathetically, Canadians have practically welcomed into Canadian waters the massive fishing vessels from around the world who have CASHED in billions upon billions. But, if the original inhabitants of Canada want to make a living from poverty, you lash out at them. Remember, you are only a descendent of an immigrant and are enjoying the abundance of native Canadian soil. It is this "racism" that has pushed natives into poverty. Racism has pushed natives into small reservations resembling Nazi concentration camps. Racism has pruned native rights for decades. It has hid or denied treaty rights from the original inhabitants of Canada. It has now pushed natives into defiance. I am from Cape Breton and am very proud to say that most Cape Bretoners are NOT racist. This evolutionary attitude reflects the high level of intelligence acquired through patience and open-mindedness. Most Cape Bretoners are poor and do not hoard the resources available. You can find that we do not have the same problems here. Why doesn't the media just claim this feud for what it is? It's a fight against racism for the natives and a racist exercise for all people involved. The media should take steps to buffer or weed out the symptoms of racism in order to gain some resolution to these kinds of problems. I know it's easy to deny this allegation and to justify the actions of those involved. To most natives, this predictable response is another sub-conconsious approach to enable the fire of differentiation, segregation and oppression. When the tensions ease concerning the N.B. fishing dispute, I predict that the justice system will prevail and that a lot of people will be charged, a lot of jobs will be lost, and a lot of natives will be compensated for hate crimes. If they do not ease, the United Nations could get involved and this would be a worldwide embarrassment for N.B. I'm sure that Nova Scotia will be positively viewed as the ideal vacation site for global tourists. Sincerely,
I must agree with native fishermen. The way that our government has treated the native people in this country is a disgrace. These people have been pushed around long enough and deserve the right to their heritage. I am disgusted with the way our elected officials have treated this situation. There are no laws in place for which these people have broken. The flagrant assault on these people just damages the years of healing that has taken place. These people deserve the right to feed their families as do all Canadians who operate within the laws that are set forth. The aboriginal people will be around long after elected officials have completed their terms, but the damage to the co-existence between natives and non-natives will continue for many, many years to come. I am sure that if non-native officials are sincere with a resolve then natives will be more apt to an agreement that does not jeopardize natural resources and safety of their children and ours in the future to come. Who does Dhaliwal think he is anyway? Jason Smeltzer
I only have one thing to say to those who called us Indians: Herb Dhaliwal is the Indian. (He is from India). We are the FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE. Phyllis Simon
My thoughts are in response to many previous contributors who have said that, if non-native fishers had threatened DFO officers, they would have been charged. I might believe this if I did not also know that during last year's lobster season when DFO officers tried to put a stop to non-native poachers, two of their boats were surrounded by non-native protesters in boats. The DFO boats were forced at high speed onto the beach. The officers were threatened with physical harm. The boats and all equipment were burned. Number of charges laid – NONE. Repercussions against the poachers and their supporters — NONE. Why? Further, when discussing the pros and cons of this issue, it is informative and very worth while to keep in mind some statistics from this year's lobster season. Namely: number of trap tags issued to native fishers this year, about 5,800, number of trap tags issued to non-native fishers this year, about 7,000,000. That's right folks, I said seven million versus fifty-eight hundred. Now, who did you say was over-harvesting? Linda Pearson
I agree with the natives 100%, let them fish. The Canadian government does not say much when huge fish factory ships from other countries clearly enter Canadian waters and deplete our stocks. It was not until Tobin a few years ago stopped them, more or less on his own. The Canadian government knows that this is going on today but ignores it. They go after the natives though, guess they feel safe. Like someone already said, the Canadian government can't do enough for people in other countries but will do nothing for Canadians. Kent Roncliff
I think it's high time that the minister in Ottawa realizes that he is there to do what we want him to do, and not as he wishes. He is there as our representative. Frankly, I don`t think that ignoring the fact that we have lawful agreement should be ignored because HE thinks he can get away with it. It`s really reprehensible that elected officials believe like they are above the law. Anne Wilson P.S. I hope that all the Canadians stand up and take notice before it's too late and we all lose our rights.
When I migrated to Canada several years back, I was under the impression that Native Americans, like the woolly mammoth, were an extinct species. Their culture, language and spirit had been choked and it was a sad part of human history. But we had learned from past mistakes and these days civilized countries responded to such ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world severely, such as the punishing bombing of Serbia which was accused by NATO of ethnic cleansing. Or so I thought. But then the natives of Burnt Church made headlines for standing up for their rights. They reminded the rest of us that natives are still alive if not thriving. In a province where, 'til a a while back, the law provided for a reward for anyone bringing in a native scalp, the natives are fighting for their rights to make a decent living. They set a number of traps that constitutes less than a percent of traps in the area and the federal government goes berserk and uses overwhelming force. What the government is telling the natives is "If you cross us, we will crush you." This reminds me of the southern states in the 1960s. I hope the government will back off their aggression. I wonder what they were doing when the non-natives destroyed the Atlantic fishery or what they are doing now about the continuing illegal over-fishing by non-natives? Using force against people kept under the thumb for hundreds of years makes me ashamed of being a Canadian and makes me ashamed of my government. Ben Arasu
Ignorance begets fear, fear begets hate. Once you have the red in your eyes, its very difficult to see reason. Concerning the comments from non-natives about their "tax dollars." Tax exemption for status natives applies to natives that live on reserves, but they still have to pay GST, a good example of the feds legislating away a treaty right. Those of us that live off of reserves (the majority) pay the same taxes as the non-native population. For those that still feel the need to argue tax exemption, remember where Canada derives its wealth, from land surrenders obtained from First Nations. Relatively little compensation was given for those millions of acres. Perhaps native people have already paid their dues to Canada. Besides, after cutting off First Nations from their economic and land base for the past 200 years, forcing them to pay taxes is a little like excluding someone from dinner and then expecting him to pick up the tab. Concerning the incident with the Tyendinaga Mohawks blocking off a bridge in support of the Mi'kmaq, I too was appalled by the same video clip. But it's an indication of the frustration and anger that stems from dealing with a Federal government whose policies of marginalization of native rights in favour of the non-native majority (which is only one tactic used in its strategy of eventual assimilation of the First Nations) thus denying us the ability to establish an economy that isn't based on whatever the fed's decide to give us this year, in lieu of the land. Ask any Native working and living off reserve why he isn't on reserve. He/she will say "Because the economic opportunities just aren't there." We would all much rather be where we were born and raised, home, but the situation on reserves will not change, unless the government starts honouring its treaty promises to allow us fair access to our traditional resources, an inherent right that's been defended successfully in the courts time and time again. But the government will not follow the courts' recommendations, because doing so would provide a way for native's to establish an economy independent of the Crown's fiduciary obligations, this is anathema to the federal government's policies of control of the natives, and eventual assimilation. In a land where the cards are so heavily stacked against us, a land where we once held domain, when will we ever be able to go home? Adrian Nadjiwon
Though I feel that the federal liberal government still has a fairly good track record, Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal needs to do a reality check on himself. 1) The native group have had their treaty and its contents validated by the Supreme Court of Canada. This allows them to do what they are doing in fishing for lobster, even out of season for the rest of us. 2) DFO "storm troopers" are out on the bay daily ripping up the native lobster traps, enforcing laws which govern non-native people only. In their zeal, they came very, very close to killing several native fishermen in a boat they had just swamped and then, when dead in the water, ran it over and sank it. If it were not so deadly, that scene could have been mistaken for a shot from "Police Academy." 3) For no other reason than the proof of the video of the above sinking, as well as another one that happened during the same skirmish, Herb Dhaliwal needs to take control of the situation. This "attack" on native fishermen had "nothing" to do with protecting the public good. The guilty DFO officers must answer charges of attempted murder. 4)Negotiation needs to come from both sides. Can Herb Dhaliwal not see that it is very hard for anyone to negotiate with someone who has just tried to kill you? If Herb Dhaliwal wants to see an end to this situation, he needs to make the first gesture, offer the olive branch, as it were. To do so, Herb Dhaliwal needs to meet these people on their home turf. If he is reluctant to do so for fear of personal injury, should that not tell him something? Right now, it has been reported that the lobster fishery is in good shape. The whole problem has stemmed from those who believe that if the native group are allowed to continue fishing outside the season, stocks will diminish, and that may well be true. Again, I suggest that an aquaculture program be considered to enhance present stocks. Putting the responsibility of re-stocking into the hands of those who benefit from the fishery could be very beneficial. The solution could turn out to greatly improve life in the entire region. Michelle Hogan, CET
Hey Knock Knock Anybody home? Canadians all, If Canada's apparatus must infringe, can it be justified? Yes, you have legislative objectives that you could argue justifies infringement. But are your legislative objectives good for us? Unemployment up to the 90 percentile is routine, dependence on social assistance is now multi-generational, death wishes among the young escalate, yadda, yadda, yadda… Those legislative objectives that work for you, well, they haven't worked as well for the aboriginal people. And, what happens after infringement? Somebody has to pay for the infringement. Does the treasury have enough to pay for all the infringements? Yes, the costs will be high. But, we haven't even begun to audit the costs to the countless aborignals, families, communities, and nations in compliance with the legislative objectives. Nodding head It's high. Compensation for all the infringements will probably break the bank. Canadians all, Gali Skalun
If the minister of fisheries thinks the Indians at Burnt Church are fishing illegally, he should instruct his officers to lay charges against the individuals involved. He should NOT send them out to confiscate other people's property and attack small boats, risking economic loss and physical injuries. If he has the right in law, something the Supreme Court seems to be in doubt about, then he should use it rather than attempting to use brutal and unjustified third-world tactics. Rabia Mills
I'm so fed up with the government when they abuse our native treaty rights, and they are breaking our treaty rights. What ever happening to the promise "as long the river runs and the grass is green…" or something like that? Every time a native breaks a law, like for instance, a gun conflict, the native is banned from guns for ten years and non-native for just one month, while the native need the gun for hunting and fishing. Again the courts break the treaty rights. I say to the government, leave our native people alone and let us practice our treaty rights, when we can fish and hunt any time we want to and not get harrassed by it. Don't go by the racists phrase "a good Indian is a dead Indian" — that is what the fisheries ministers are doing out there on the east coast in New Brunswick. Leave our native people alone. Rita Scott
The media needs to print both sides of the story and quit fuelling the public with the propaganda. Non-native people, along with media and government, don't understand or realize that native people have been treated badly long enough from all levels of organizations and we are saying enough is enough. Get aboriginal leaders involved in this dispute on the federal and provincial levels. How can you tell us what is right or wrong for us when you haven't been in our shoes? It's petty bad that the government would still use forceful tactics to sway us from what we believe in. You stripped us from a lot of our treaty rights. When will you quit? When we have nothing? Now a days, and I am not racist, but an immigrant sure has more right on this land than it's original settlers. It's darn right racist that you would treat a society with force and the media only paints our side negatively, fueling the already existing racial problems. We have existed before the white man came and we will be here a long time yet. All the power to the brothers out at Burnt Church and don't back down no matter how dirty everyone else is getting. Non-native people don't realize how much our people have been hurt and still are treated unjusticely. How would you feel that your land is taken away, your children/people violated in residential schools and brainwashed to believe that they are wrong. If you would just try and understand us, only then you will understand why our stand today is so strong. Sharon A. Desjarlais
I am very disappointed in many of the comments I have read. I'm ashamed to say that I share my Canadian nationality with these ignorant people. If it weren't for the non-native government forcing natives onto reserves and punishing them for using their own language, the problems we have today would not exist. This is one of the greatest mistakes our ancestors made and IT WILL NEVER GO AWAY, so deal with it. You can't just come out and say, "okay, now you have to try and live like everybody else in Canada, even though for years you have been isolated from the rest of society." After generations of native people living on reserve, this has become their way of life, their community. A lot of people who wrote in also mentioned that "natives get everything for Free." What a load of ignorant crap! Native people have to buy food just like we do, have to pay part of their dental and vision care, just like we do, have to pay for some of their medication, just like we do, AND also pay TAXES everywhere off reserve. Keep up with the news people! Most of you have no idea what it feels like to be a minority in your own country, to not have adequate representation in government. Their own Indian Affairs Minister (I find the term barbaric) will not listen to what Burnt Church has to say on their own terms. There has also been a lot of paranoia among the non-native fishermen in the region which is totally unfounded. There is no way that the native fishermen could even make a dent in the fishery. They do not have the large boats that the non-native commercial fishermen own! What is that all about? There is another issue that blows my mind. You always hear stereotypical comments like "natives are lazy," but now that they have found a way to sustain their livelihood they are being ostracized for it. I applaud the people of Burnt Church for standing up and being heard! Nina
Well to begin with, shortly after this trouble started a government spokesman made a comment about the natives fishing the "lucrative" lobster industry. After reading that comment, the first thing that came to mind was that our government and the white fishermen were afraid or "greedy" of allowing anyone else to "take from thier pockets." Here is a question, how many traps do "we" put out as a race to feed our families as a whole? Then compare that to the number of traps the indian race use to support thier families. The highest court in Canada says that the natives can fish "to support" their families, yet our government doesn't allow it? I know there are a lot more issues that I may not know about, but in general I have to believe that something is wrong with this picture. Gary Hunter
The recent authoritarian stance of the DFO against native fishers in Burnt Church is another good illustration of the intolerance and hatred the native peoples have had to face since the arrival of the Europeans. The clashes we have been witnessing are just another reminder to us natives that our lands and resources will forever be seen as commodities for the rich to get richer, and the powerful to protect their riches. If you think the DFO's actions in Burnt Church are a means to conserve resources in the area, think again. Nunavut is a prime example of who's interest the DFO serves — the non-native expansionist wealthy. In our own waters, for example, we are allowed to fish only 30% of the marine resources. This would never be allowed in other parts of Canada. And the reason is simple, the majority of the people living up here are native. In Canada, this is a no no. Jacopoosie Peter
As I watched the news about first nations, I was moved by the Indian Affairs Minister in light of what is going on with the First Nations and the government today. I fear that there will be a loss of life or maybe worse. What do we have to do in order for the white government to see the First Nations? Can anybody remember when JEAN CHRETIAN was Minister of Indian Affairs? Well I do, and a lot of people in Canada remember, too. He was a man who wanted to help the First Nations but the white govermnent didn't see fit for him to practice in that area so they moved him to another area of government. So Mr. Nault, I hope you are happy for not helping the First Nations because you will not be the first person that has done so. And are we forgetting what the law of the land has passed in Canada? Now the government is breaking the law towards the First Nations. The RCMP and the DFO are fighting the war that we already won. We all know there is a place where non-natives in Canada go for help, but as for First Nations, they have no place to go, except to speak with the elders in our communities. The elders absorb all the pain that the First Nations have and not the so-called white government. I hope there is no loss of life in this modern day war against the First Nations as has happened across Canada. First Nations are being killed by the government and nothing is being done to stop this. It's too bad our young will have to go through the same thing we are going though now. Thank you very much,
I find it ridiculous and genocidal that many Euro-Canadians have a hard time understanding and supporting the First Peoples of this land. Here are a few points to ponder: — Natives never lost wars or seceded any lands, instead entered into legal treaties with the Euros. — They have honored their end of the bargain. Why can't Euros? — Natives are allowed to evolve, just like the rest of the citizens who live amongst their land. You don't see many Euro-Canadians using horse-drawn carriages and writing with ink and quill pens. — They HAVE THEIR OWN LAWS and have always had them. Conservation and protection of lands have always been accomplished, that is until greedy Euros came — Native people have the right to live free from oppression and genocide, just as other nations Canada goes to war for. — Can you imagine living under the "Caucasian Act?" Well native people live under the "Indian Act" which dictates who is and who is not "INDIAN" Native people cannot decide who is a part of their nation and who is not. It is done by the federal government based on a racist system. Can you imagine if Canada had to augment its population through breeding? Well, Canada is lucky it can decide who they will admit into Canadian citizenship. Natives must do this through mating. More people = more power. — Oh yeah, good thing Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey or else Native people would have been called Turkeys, the word Indian is largely incorrect — Herb Dhaliwal is an INDIAN! — Finally a right is sometihng you do not tamper or tinker with. It is a priviledge. Natives have a right, an inherent right, and non-natives have the priviledge to hunt and fish. Funny how the notion of conservation is coming up now. What about the cod fishery? What about the forest? Pure racism. God forbid some native people get to exercise some of their rights. Read: Lisa Saulis
Come on now, let's just look at the whole situation not just a small part of how natives have been treated in the history of this so called GREAT NATION of Canada, all of you who say that the natives should be treated the same as the rest of the CITIZENS of Canada. Now tell me just how you became a citizen of a country that had existed for thousands of years without European influences. And how the first people to land in this country from Europe even lasted for the first gruelling winter. It was the FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES who helped them that's who. They extended their hands in FRIENDSHIP and, in the end, lost their lands to people who in no better words STOLE the country from them because the were a kind, sharing and caring people. I read a comment from some sad person from the GTA who said that we as natives never helped to build this country to what we have now. I would suggest that this illiterate person read some history, because without the help of the IROQUOIS, there is a great possibility that this would now be just another state of the United States of America. As a member of the first nations peoples of this country, I take offence to these narrow-minded immigrants who come to this country and have the audascity to say things like that. Come on, give credit where credit is due. Orville
ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. This definition comes to mind every time I hear/see DFO in full armor, dressed to kill, acting like the KKK, attack a few Mi'kmaq fishermen trying to feed their families. Nothing anyone can say can change the fact that one of our fishermen in New Edinburgh was beaten by DFO in the shallow waters, then dragged up on the wharf, where he was handcuffed by RCMP, and then beaten again by DFO in a Rodney-King style beating. They beat him with a riot stick, and then threw it in the water to hide the evidence, but one of our guys later retrieved it from the water. The riot stick is bent and hard to close, showing how much force was used when they beat him with it. People who can actually say that what DFO is doing is right, are sick in the head. I have said this before, and I will say it again and again, the initial Marshall ruling and the subsequent "clarification" stated that the federal government may regulate the fishery if there is no band regulation in place and if the federal government can justify their regulations on the basis of conservation and public safety. If you have not read the Marshall ruling and clarification, as well as the Esgenoôpetitj Fishing Act and Esgenoôpetitj Management Plan, then you are not well informed at all, and are basing your negative responses on stereotypes, discrimination and ignorance. Nothing will ever be solved until Canada recognizes our rights and freedoms, and then we can begin to work together, nation-to-nation, in peace and harmony. Sincerely,
I've read a lot of responses that talk about natives having the same fishing rights as every other Canadian citizen. I don't ever remember signing up to become a Canadian. It was forced on my ancestors after we welcomed them to our lands and showed them how to survive here in North America. We have our own laws and don't need the Canadian government trying to regulate everything we do and trying to take away any rights we have left. The past cannot be changed but I think the government can try harder in the future and work with us as a separate nation for the future good of this land. Jill
Hello, and thanks for a big brother freedom. I just read the majority of responses/opinions on native rights to fish, as prescribed by the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Donald Marshall case. I'm in the process of editing my own manuscript for a book and a derivitive screenplay about Acadians and Mi'kmaq during the years of expulsion, and the paying of bounties for scalps removed from the still-warm heads of murdered/killed mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and infants of native people, in the attempt to promote and entice people to commit genocide in what is now Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Maine. A historical-fiction requires a modicum of research, and extrapolating the substance of treaties put to First Nations people of the day, in the oppressive environments in which they were presented. It is my opinion that it was only a matter of time before First Nations people of Canada would rise from the suppression of their societal, religious, and cultural rights. Sovereign rights released to natives by the Supreme Court of Canada are a direct challenge to the Canadian government's sovereignty over a people the DFO and the Canadian Government believed had no rights, have no rights, and must continue to have no rights regarding dominion over any natural resource unless selected for the First Nations by the government. Such actions suggest that at no time must the government be perceived as having committed any wrongdoing, or required to RELINQUISH sovereignty or dominion over any resource in this vast and wealthy nation! This point of view is being exercised even though the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canada is AT FAULT and has no license over First Nations' access to these resources! The incidents at Burnt Church, NB, and Indian Brook, NS, are not about how many and when lobster traps are in the water. They is about sovereignty, power and greed just as it was during the 1750s when treaties were being signed at gunpoint. Our government must succumb to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and sit down to develop a new relationship with the First Nations people or it could and may lead to anarchy, by the DFO today and with other unrelated government departments quickly mirroring their actions across the country. Just like BIG BROTHER... eh! Do you get the idea of what Natives are trying to protect? Ray Muise
First of all I would like to say that I am glad that a lot of us have the opportunity to openly share our comments about the dispute. There was a time when the native opinion would not be entertained and the information on native issues would not even be printed in the papers. Secondly, I would like to say that the grass roots natives of this country need the support of sound-minded fellow Canadians of this country. I was very pleased with the decision of the Supreme Court allowing my fellow natives in Atlantic Canada to fish and I believe that the justices arrived at this decision because the 1760 treaty was written with the intent of allowing natives to exist in a manner that would complement the way they lived. Up to the point when the treaty was recognized, the natives were not allowed the advantage to gain a moderate livelihood through the fisheries resource due to the stringent rules on gaining a licence. This left the natives the only option but to remain on welfare and to continue fostering the dependent mentality which is now so prevelant in the minds of most natives in this country. The outcome of the Supreme Court decision has raised a lot of hopes for my poeple and I genuinely state that it is not my intention as a grassroots native to displace anyone who has similar goals to gain a moderate living. It is my hope that the leaders involved in the Atlantic dispute will work towards solving this issue in a non-confrontational manner to the end that both fisheries groups can co-excist on the land and the waters. On a final note, I would like to say that Canadians have no reason to hate natives because there is not reason for hate. I am hoping that Canadians will continue to talk about the native issues and look deeper and you will find that the grassroots natives in this country are no different than you. Look deeper than the half-truth stories with the masked aboriginal in the front page. We are a people who thrive to experience love, joy, compassion, happiness, sharing and a peaceful co-existence with our fellow Canadians to the end that we can justify saying that Canada is the greatest country in the world. Larry
I wonder how many people in the world are getting tired of the strong-arm tactics of the goverment of Canada. Whenever the First Nations of this country band together to protect their immediate interests, the media and the government distribute to the world, the image of the young warrior at the barricade on one page, and the poor civil servant on the other. This issue has everything to do about the lack of basic human rights for the First Nations of this country. Consider the fact that while most First Nations struggled to learn the laws and ways of the visitors to their territories, massive resources were hauled out and sold, there was wealth creation alright. The only thing is that it went into the pockets of the multi-nationals and a few select businesses. If anything, First Nations have always maintained a humble respect for the resources that the Creator provided for them, and they shared it with their respective communities. It is time for the government of this country to release the strangle hold that it has on the First Nations people, time to put to rest the assimilation tactics, and definately time to hear what the grass-roots level has to offer in the way of managing these resources. The government of Canada has succeeded in pitting one nation against the other, now it is up to the leaders of the First Nations to put aside the little differences that may be present and show the world that we are still capable of living in harmony with our environment and don't readily accept surviving on our hands and knees, bowing to pick up the hand-outs that are occasionally thrown our way. Dean
The situation in Burnt Church has all the potential of erupting into another Oka crisis. It amazes me that the natives had their rights re-affirmed by the supreme court - the highest court in the land, yet the government insists on doing everything its way, denying the natives the right to fish, cut trees or find any means of obtaining a livelihood. Mind you, it's not the first time that natives have been trampled under the feet of the lily-white man. Since we first set foot upon the continent of North America, we have used force and intimidation to expropriate the rights and property of the native population. We even tore native children away from their parents to strip them of their culture and re-program them to our way of life (again by force and intimidation). It's time for the native population of this continent to tell the occupying foreigners to go back where they came from. David Roles
In listening to the daily reports on the events of Burnt Church, I can't help but think of the philosophical musings of a friend some years ago when she suggested that 'there is only one moral postion in terms of First Nations land ownership and the rights to its use and preservation - to unconditionally return the land (and sea) that was taken from the First Nations by non-native North Americans over the past few centuries. The practical solution, however, must represent a balance that allows for past indescretions and the contemporary nature of land ownership, stewardship, and use. Practical proposals and/or policy development and enforcement cannot and should not precede the moral position on this issue. I stand strongly in support of the defenders of treaty rights and claims for economic and culural autonomy. The bullies on the seas, in this case the DFO, are impersonal players who have no vested interst in the final outcome of this or other disputes involving the First Nations and hence should not be given free consent to act against those who have their livelihood and cultural and national heritage at stake. The Canadian government has a responsibility to make both its moral and practical position on the fishery in Burnt Church clear for public scrutiny prior to implementing any further course of action in this issue. Stephen Jull
The following letter is in response to a letter sent by Pierre Savoie Pierre, Pierre, Pierre, In fact radio carbon dating of metals found in Canada seems to point to the fact that natives were the first metalurgest in the world. The hardy pioneer, what a joke. Had the so-called pioneers not relied on the natives, there would be NO such thing as a pioneer, let alone pioneer desendant. Pioneer indeed, excuse me while I laugh. More like an other disenfranchised white guy. Henri Chevillard
I think it's is a shame that the Canadian government will not honour the Supreme Court ruling that the Mi'kmaq have the right to fish. The Canadian government sends in the DFO to seige traps set by the natives when they clearly have the right to be there. It's a policy that is as old as the treaty, chip away at the natives' rights until there is nothing left to the original treaty. The Mi'kmaq people need the fishing opportunity to pull themselves out of the welfare trap. Public pressure and Ottawa's insistance of regulating and chipping away at native fishing will not let the Mi'kmaq people take their rightful place in Canadian society. Alex Maloney
It is terrible the First Nations people cannot have the their rights as prescribed by the highest court in the land and respected by Canadians. Let's not pretend Canada and Canadians are simply innocent, nice people. The evidence is clear that they only respect aborginal rights when it does not affect their pocket books. Is that all your treaties and words are worth - not even the paper they're written on. What kind of people are Canadians? Let's be honest. George Morgan
I was very intrigued by the article I read on the web page, but I just needed to pose a few questions to you. If everyone in Canada is "forced" to follow rules and regulations that the federal government has put in place, which are to be applicable to everyone, than why is it that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes "exceptions" and creates new policies to accomidate the non-native fishermen at the drop of a hat? Why should the Mi'kmaqs in Burnt Church suffer at the hands of the DFO's "MIGHTY RATH?" Why are Mi'kmaqs in Burnt Church being bullied by DFO officers carrying guns? What... no pepperspray? Other native communities are watching very closely and will no longer stand by and watch as you bully and harrass our people. Your politicians base municipal elections on the biased complaint that native people are so dependent on the federal government, and the welfare system YOU have in place will have to take care of "them" (Natives). Yet you FORCE us to be further dependent on the government for our livelyhoods and our children's future. We are often the "scapegoat" when it comes down to any responsibility on behalf of the government. What do you think is going to happen when we keep beating in you own courts? When we keep winning our rights back? And I wonder what will happen if Natives start making you accountable for all the injustices you as a government-policy society have "condoned" for -- not negotiated with - the Mi'kmaq people? Just something to think about. Here's something else to think about. If you ever sang the national anthem, you would be singing the verse about "our home and NATIVE land," or what about this one, "A true North Strong and Free." Free of what you may want to ask yourselves. Free of Racism? Not here. Free of persecution due to creed nationality or colour? Not here. Free to practice religous beliefs and rights of passage? Not here. So I must ask again. Exactly what is it that we are free to do? Why is it that it is only you that has that freedom to decide our fates and our children's futures? Why is it that only you have the freedom to decide where we will live and how we will live? Why is it that only you non-natives have the freedom to decide if we fish or hunt on our land? Again, just something to think about. Thank you,
Responses to the DFO Ramming of Native Boats
Very appalling were the images of fishery officers smashing their boat into a smaller native lobster boat, causing the three natives to dive overboard. I wrote next day to Bob Speller, our local Liberal MP, expressing that this looked like a pretty serious crime and expressing that the government should immediately distance themselves from the officer's misconduct and perhaps stave off another aboriginal peoples stand off (like Oka). Surely these couple seconds of video send a strong signal around the world as to Canada's treatment and attitude toward First Nations' rights. Zebulon Landon
I think that the government is handling this all wrong! The DFO officers who rammed those boats should be charged with at the least assault causing bodily harm and should be promptly fired. That won't happen though, the government is intent on the genocide of our people and this is just blatant proof that they will stop at nothing to oppress our people. If this had happened to any other race of people, the sh*t would have hit the fan for sure! Since it was us "indians" that this happened to, the country and the government defended the actions of these racist people. I am so angry with the government and Herb Dhaliwal, how dare they condone the violence inflicted upon these people who are only trying to exercise their rights as the Marshal Decision decrees. The only people acting illegally in this matter is the govenrment the DFO and Herb "sellout" Dhaliwal. Go Burnt Church! Don't back down! Take Back the land! The only way to get their attention and prove our point is by sticking up for ourselves! In the spirit of armed confrontation and native pride nation wide,
The situation at Burnt Church is out of control and should be very disturbing to all Canadians. At most, the crime being committed is poaching, which is not punishable by death in this country. Yet, when federal forces start ramming boats filled with Canadian citizens, they risk imposing just such a penalty. I would like to know why the prime minister, whom I have the greatest respect for, has not told Dhaliwal to get some kind of reasonable perspective on this situation. The Burnt Church band wants to see the lobster catch managed as much as the govenment does, they just don't want the feds shoving regulations down their throats and setting precedents that will minimize their control in the future. Let them have Broadbent as a mediator. He is a trusted person in this country that would deal with the issue with the best interests of all concerned. Let's not tarnish our "best country in the world to live in" status by turning our federal forces upon our own people. Ken Gunn, Ph.D.
Thank you for not just dropping the story regarding the events in Burnt Church! Please be diligent in following up, and continue to show all sides in this conflict. I do not believe the natives are being treated or bargained with in good faith. The ramming alone, if nothing else, is a marine offence – and Canada, in fact, has declared war upon the native peoples. It is a good thing that these peoples are who and what they are. I am sick of our government's arguments and bad faith. Joan Goegan
No one under any circumstance should be allowed to jeopardize lives by intentionally running down another small boat with humans aboard. These "officers" should be fired for bad judgement and not be in a position of trust representing the government of Canada. Period. End of story. Our prime minister MUST get involved, he is the captain of our Canadian ship, so goes the captain so goes the ship, and his leadership management stands is in jeopardy at a time of an election over this issue. The people of Canada will not stand for complacency in an issue "so photogenic in the people's minds" as recorded on film for Canadians. The American beating of a black man by U.S. police blew up over time as it was tried to be swept away, but slowly knawed at people's minds as to what is right. This example is frankly no different in my mind to abuse by people in a position of trust. Glenn Reid
I was absolutely shocked to think that so-called "men" of the DFO would ram and actually go right over the fishing boat with three men in it! What kind of beasts are these men, who are supposed to be law-abiding? What are they trying to do, kill these fishermen? They would have if the natives had not dived mighty fast into the water. That is certainly a criminal act and I expect that they will be charged and suffer the consequences. They have no right to patrol our Canadian waters in this manner. They should all lose their jobs as I would not want to be around them in our waters. Sorry, but please, if we are still living in a law-abiding land, then police should act quickly. At least the fishermen had more respect for other boats! Olivia Coughlan It makes me ill to watch a Canada Fisheries boat run over and very near kill one or more people in the smaller boat! Who gave the fisheries officers the right to attempt to murder another person? The First Nations people of Canada have treaty rights to fish, if not, how come everybody involved has not been charged? The native people won't fall into line and Mr. Dhaliwal is trying to smack them into line! All of this right in front of our great RCMP. Talk about turning a blind eye! I have lost all faith in our current goverment and police, which lately has been breaking the law with impunity and complete disregard for all Canadians, native and non-native! Wake Up Canada! D. C.
Today the D.F.O. rammed and sunk two native-owned fishing boats. Why? Because they are "upholding the law" as they say. Herb Dhaliwal (who is not even an aboriginal) is quoted as saying that the D.F.O. are just out there doing there job and will continue to do so. Also that he will condemn anyone who brings the law into their own hands. Who is upholding the law for us? Certainly not Herb Dhaliwal. He is just a puppet for the government. We have no choice but to do what we have to do. If we don't stand up for ourselves and our rights as the people of this land, who will? So, hell yeah, take this into our own hands, fight for our rights! We are not being greedy, like so many white people say we are, far from it, we are trying to preserve our heritage and save our Mother Earth for our children. Herb Dhaliwal is supposed to be on our side, looking after our best interests. All he really is doing is telling us to sell out. To give up what is ours. Well, I say bullsh*t. Don't listen to him, he's not even from our country and yet they give him a job looking after the best interests of our PEOPLE – the true and original inhabitants of this land. I say native people of Canada stand up for yourselves! Shake off the oppression of this white supremacist order! They try to keep us down and fighting amongst ourselves because they know that together, UNITED, we will take back what is rightfully ours as the original inhabitants of this land! When The Marshall decision was made, natives across Canada rejoiced. We were happy that for ONCE the government was upholding its part of the bargain it made when we signed the treaties. In reality, they say that they honour the treaty. But when we started exercising our rights as we should, we were told that it was too much, that we should stop and that we should quit exhausting the resources! Hah! That is the pot calling the kettle black! What have they been doing on this earth since they evolved? Exhausting the resources! Well excuse me while I laugh. The native people were historically the most environmentally-aware culture to ever roam this world. We took care of the Earth and never did we exhaust the resources. We respected and loved the earth. Last, but not least, to all you Red Apples out there: What is wrong with you people? Have you no pride? Where is your spirit? You know that this is wrong and yet you continue to let the white man stomp all over your people! You are in positions to really make a difference and help us, to achieve sovereignty. Yet your money and cars and white houses with white gardens are more important than your own people and Mother Earth. In the end, I hope that it was worth it, when your kids and grand kids are choking on pollution everyday and burning from the cancerous rays of the sun, all you will have is your car and your house, and no land to hunt trap and fish as we are supposed to. Sacheen Pointe-Derange
I'm 49 years old, born & raised in Toronto. I have never written to the media about the issues I have seen on TV until now. I could not believe it when I saw the fisheries officers ram two native fishing boats. Fisheries Minister Mr. Herb Dhaliwal would only say that he hopes the latest move will bring both sides back to the table. What would the chief of police say if Toronto police officers drove a police car into a crowd of protestors? There would be a public out cry, an investigation and possible charges. I can see that Herb Dhaliwal has no regard for the lives of the natives in Burnt Church. He should be held responsible for the actions of the officers in his department. I understand that the natives are fighting for what they believe in and causing injuries to the fisheries officers, but there is a difference between a rock and a large power boat. I'm trying to understand both sides but I was upset by what I saw and by the reaction of Mr. Dhaliwal. Wayne Fox
A sad hello, I can't resist another comment, as I am astonished at the wanton acts of violence inflicted upon First Nations people by DFO officers in Burnt Church as witnessed on every news channel here in the Atlantic provinces and across Canada. Like most Canadians, I am outraged and appalled that so much freedom and right to commit physical assault against anyone has been afforded untrained government personnel. These are neither policemen/policewomen or military personnel trained in the physcological approaches and methods commonly employed in attaining peaceful resolution to conflicts. It is probably the lack of such training and discipline that causes most to revert to bullying tactics, as they know of no other means to carry out orders from Ottawa, in light of blatant lack of professional and logical, leadership. Utilizing uncivilized tactics against a people too often referred to as savages, they are reverting to centuries-old customs still being practiced against First Nations people. I can no longer resist a truth gnawing in the back of my mind that those in charge are, or maybe, guilty of incompetency. There is too much at stake for such responsibilities to be left in the hands of anyone who continually shirks obligations and allows his/her subordinates to decide the directions and actions to be taken, and, after the fact, condoning the results as being appropriate to maintain dominance (law and order) over people to whom his/her department's laws and regulations do not apply. That certainly includes the confrontations taking place in Burnt Church, New Brunswick. The final conclusion to these events across Canada is written in our own history and being repeated right before our eyes. e.g: Cornwallis, 1744; Lawrence, 1752-1756, etc., etc.! First the DFO, then the RCMP, then the Armed Forces, then jail, then back to the reservation! Amen. Fishing at the mouth of the Miramichi will once more be a pipe dream to natives watching non-natives as they resume pulling lobster traps within view of those living on the shores of the reservation. And Mi'kmaq children will know what's in store for their own future. Ray Muise
As a Canadian away from home I was shocked to see the brutality of law enforcement on Canadian citizens. Would you allow a police officer to use his patrol car as a weapon against a person even if he was running from a crime scene? Have you ever seen the injuries inflicted by a prop from a racing boat? No one gives the fisheries officers the right to punish any one. Courts do that! M. Lanham
The fishermen are right. Federal forces have violated the "laws of the seas" and they couldn't care less for anyone who is against them in any fashion. This has been shown time after time. Almost every minister in Chretiens cabinet is guilty of breaking many laws — that they set the policy for — but all think they are gods and far above any laws, federal or universal. In the case of the N.B. Fisheries, I think the natives should file charges of attempted murder, or whatever else they could call it — from assault to manslaughter to murder — against every member of the force on duty and their commanding officer and the minister with the stupidity to sanction such uncivilized actions. The sooner we get rid of the liberal party, the better off the world will be. Harvey Young
I am writing in regard to the Burnt Church Fisheries dispute. What the DFO did today, ramming boats, is unacceptable. With that said however, I must side with the federal government on this issue. Your story said "Karen Sommerville read a statement from Chief Wilbur Dedam. It called the ramming "a flagrant assault." She said native leaders want the fisheries officers to be charged with attempted murder. Sommerville said if the RCMP don't lay charges, it would be proof that there are two laws in Canada, one for natives and another for non-natives." There are of course two laws in Canada when natives are involved — two tax laws. According to the Marshall Decision, the natives have the right to earn a moderate living off fishing but the federal goverment can regulate that fishery. Well, if the natives want to get some benefits being native, tax differences, out-of-season fishing, they must also except some rules. It comes down to natives knowing their so-called rights, and not enough about their responsibilities. Joel Steacy
I sure hope my MP and all the others serving us across the country take the time to read all the comments made by the general public on this subject. The time has come for the winds of change. How many MP's have the guts to address this issue? T. Dean
Shame, shame, shame! Will we never learn? Do we really want another Oka? Are we proud of the way our governments dealt with that in our names? The behaviour of the DFO in this instance brings shame on us all. Frank Timmermans
Watching the news video of the Native boats being run down was a shock. No matter what the cause — there is no excuse for this. Canadians are certainly ruining our reputation for promoting peace and solving problems. I hope the responsible people will pay an appropriate price for this unbelievable act. It reflects badly on all Canadians. It also makes one wonder what else we don't get to see. Laura Tempany
After watching the DFO's assault of native fishermen yesterday, I realize that the government's official policy on native relations is still one of violence. I wonder what would have happen to our peaceful kingdom if the DFO officials had succeeded in killing a couple of fisherman. It certainly was clear that the second time they rammed the boat they were looking for blood. This has always been the Canadian government's official negotiating technique with natives. Thanks to modern technology, yesterday they got caught. Today Canadians will expose their racism against natives as we listen to the deafening silence of outrage against our representatives attempted murder caught on tape. Robert Todd
If my employees were seen on video irrefutably running people down in their boats, they would be immediately fired and charged with attempted murder. How else can yesterday's conflict be viewed? With the DFO officers off the street, and out of the water, their boss and his staff have to be dealt with. DFO spokesman Andre-Marc Lanteigne must be fired for taking his erroneous stance with the media. Herb Dhaliwal has supported the DFO officers on the front lines, publically, as doing their job, like riding over a cyclist with a mack truck? Herb, you need to be gone, too. The DFO needs to stop trying to deal with the throwing of rocks and start dealing with the people throwing them. True, the native group refuses to stop fishing. It is how they survive. They have a treaty stating that they have the right to do so. But the minister demands that they stop (and starve) before he is willing to talk to them. Where is the compromise? Where is the leadership? If you cannot negotiate, admit your failings and get someone in there who can. By their own admission, the liberal government has stated that they are ready for an election. Show the nation that you deserve to be re-elected and demonstrate you leadership and resolve the Burnt Church situation. Set up an aquaculture program and involve the present native and non-native communities to enhance the present fishery so that if the fishery fails in the future, it will only be due to the efforts, or lack therof, of those who depend on it for their livlihood. Let us deal with this mess while we can still call it a "situation" and before it escalates to a "conflict." Michelle Hogan
In 1534, Jacques Cartier came into contact with the self-governing group of people called the Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq people wanted to trade with the foreigners but Cartier became afraid and sailed away only to return after great encouragement. Herb Dhaliwal is using propaganda and a play on words to turn the tide against the Mi'kmaq people. He and others in the Canadian government branches use words like "illegal" and "unlawfull" to get the Canadian public to think that the Mi'kmaq are breaking the law when they clearly are not. The Suprieme court ruling upheald the Mi'kmaq treaty of 1752 which states that the Mi'kmaq have the right to "free liberty of hunting and fishing as usual." These first treaties were to end hostilities between the British subjects and the Mi'kmaq people. The Mi'kmaq were to be "free from molestation" and "disputes would be settled in coutrs." It is clear that the Canadian government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are violating this treaty agreement. The Mi'kmaq nation only wants to regulate their own fishing agreement as a show of assertion of self-government. I was very disturbed to see the DFO delibertley ramming the Mi'kmaq fishermen with their boat when the Mi'kmaq were only trying to protect what is rightfully theirs. I have to say to the Canadian government, DFO and the Canadian public that this is no way to settle disputes and expect the Mi'kmaq people to negotiate when they are being harrassed. In other ares of the Maritimes, young and old Mi'kmaq fisherman alike are being beaten up by DFO officers. I personelly know of one young man who was severely beaten by DFO officers when he was trying to protect his fishing boat. And you call the native people savages? SHAME ON ALL OF YOU! I was also reading some of the letters that were submitted to CBC and was shocked to see that this country needs a revision in Canadian History. To all of you in Canada and the United States, send your support to the Mi'kmaq people in the Maritimes. Write letters, talk to you MP, and show your support for what is finally an oportunity for the Mi'kmaq people to return a lost part of their cultural activities. Alex Maloney
The footage this morning of DFO boats ramming Native fisherman was entirely disturbing. Luckily no one was killed, but it wasn't for lack of trying. Seeing the fishermen jump from their boats made my heart sink, yet the minister continues to defend this extreme use of force. We are all as guilty as the boat drivers if we sit quietly by and do nothing. Even if you don't agree with the native fisherman (I do), it's hard to believe anyone would condone this level of violence. That the government would choose this route over negotiating is just shameful. Robin Witty
Regarding the troubled native fishing at Burnt Church, something doesn't add up. As Canadians, we all know that, besides native rights in the signed treaties, Canadian native peoples — brothers and sisters who welcomed and protected us upon our arrival on this continent five or six centuries ago — were fairly recently reassured (by "us") of their right to hunt and fish wherever and whenever they want in this country. Now those rights are being "re-interpreted" by non-natives, and rapidly revoked by the "newcomers." The violence and law-breaking we see, is not coming from the native peoples, for the most part at least, but they are being sorely provoked! What is wrong with law making in this country? Why say one thing and mean something else? Why is the big "pot" calling the tiny kettle black? How can it be said that the natives are breaking the law when they are doing exactly what they were given permission by the courts to do? And now, as they work to make a fair living, violent and brazen criminal acts are being carried out against them, before the eyes of their loved ones, just because those native fishermen believed the courts meant what they said. The Court did not say they may fish at the risk of their lives and that of their families. Is that what they really meant? It is plain to see that something is wrong, and no doubt most of your viewers cannot stand seeing the footage showing small native fishing craft being rammed by Department of Fisheries wardens in their big boats. I consider such acts as we saw on the TV news this evening, to be downright criminal. What is wrong with the "justice" system? Where is fairness? I believe the real problem is the insatiable greed of the powerful, easy exploitation of minorities, total absence of brotherly love, and gross misuse of legislative power — the main tool being the twisting of the meaning of words! Something has to change soon. Marie O'Brien
On arriving home last night from a week up north, I turned to CBC to catch up on the news. The first clip was of powerful government fisheries boats running down and almost killing three native protestors. I was horrified! 1. I object to this violence. 2. My tax dollars should not be used for this purpose. 3. The government that represents me does not have my authority to use such irresponsible force against other Canadians. 4. CBC should have immediately expressed editorial outrage or samples of Canadians who are outraged. 5. I look forward to seeing and hearing criticisms of this act on your news programs today. The nation and countries around the world should know that a huge mistake was made and that Canadians will not tolerate this treatment of our native population. Yours truly,
I was shocked and appalled by the newsreel footage showing DFO officers ramming the boats of native fishers near Burnt Church. Clearly the skippers of the DFO vessles should be charged under the criminal code. Their conduct was totally beyond the pall of acceptable conduct. They destroyed private property and endangered the lives of Canadian citizens. At the very least they should loose their jobs and a policy review be undertaken for the entire department. The DFO has upted the ante with this use of force and over what? A fishing violation? Surely the sane course of action is to fine and if necessary arrest someone who is breaking the law. I consider myself a peaceful and sensible person but if a boat that size approached me at high speed with the obvious intention of running me down, uniformed government sanctioned crew or not, I would use whatever force I had available to defend myself. I am impressed by the restraint shown by the native spokespersons. Without even knowing all the details of the technical arguments in this Dispute, I can say that the native fishermen certainly have my emotional support. Craig Pittman
Disgusting behaviour on the part of the fisheries minister and his officers! When are our federal representatives going to realize that these out-dated, strong-arm tactics will get them nothing, except the international contempt they so richly deserve! Chretien has his minister acting as if he were the school-yard bully. The supreme court has made a ruling in favour of the natives. If the government doesn't like that ruling, perhaps they could ask for clarification. Failing to find the moral backbone for that, perhaps they might try "negotiating." Perhaps they could find a mediator, or perhaps the UNITED NATIONS could help with that end of the problem. One can't help but wonder if our PM has been picking up some unsavory ideas from his new third-world friends. We certainly hope not. Denis Cabana
I am appalled that the DFO would use boats to ram fishers out of their boats into the water. This is unjust and disgusting to watch. Where in the hell does any law in Canada give the DFO or any government agency in Canada the right to use vehicles (boats) of any kind to stop people from surviving. Canada has gone to the dogs, led by the government of the day. Cal Parsons
|