So, the question remains: Why should the Six Nations protesters be treated differently? Certainly, the threat of violence is no excuse; in fact, it compounds the contempt of court.NOTE: To his credit Mr. Ibbitson did reply to my email regarding my conjecture about public response (I believe I used the phrase "shitstorm of protest") to his article. He stated, "Noted. Yes, the majority (and the editorial board) are on your side." He also stands by his writing despite the flak he took. While totally disagreeing with his opinion, I can respect that.
ORIGINAL POST follows:
In todays Globe & Mail, John Ibbitson tells us that violence trumps the rule of law... in Canada anyway. He states categorically...
There is the principled rule of law, and then there is reality.So what is the reality in Caledonia, according to John?
In Caledonia, militant natives have seized land to protest against what they see as the unwillingness of the federal government to settle their land claim. They have already demonstrated a propensity for violence. People close to the scene are absolutely convinced that, if the Ontario Provincial Police try to disperse the occupation, people will be killed or seriously hurt.At the risk of having my nuanced, peacekeeping Canadian citizenship questioned, I have a couple of questions.
- (1) Objectively, what is the difference between this group of apparently homicidal maniacs in Caledonia and this other group in Great Britain?
LONDON — British police have arrested 21 people in connection with a bombing plot that they say would have caused "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" on commercial aircraft flying from Britain to the United States.
- (2) What's the plan for dealing with any other group (Hezbollah, Hell's Angels, etc.) who are likewise prepared to "demonstrate their propensity for violence" in furtherance of their particular agenda?
RELATED: Hey, look at me... I'm a warrior too!
Technorati Tags: Caledonia, injunction, Justice Marshall