WHY?  Part 1: Michael Bryant: Ex-Attorney General of Ontario

by Gary McHale - The Regional

September 16, 2009

Mr. Bryant was the Attorney General of Ontario from Oct, 2003 until Oct. 2007 and during this time Caledonia experienced serious criminal behaviour, which I believe meets the legal definition of a terrorist attack. In Canada, terrorism is defined by the Canadian Terrorism Act and is found in section 83 in the Criminal Code of Canada. The Act states that terrorism is:

"An act or omission, in or outside Canada that is committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and that intentionally (A)  causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence, (B) endangers a person’s life, (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public, (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C)..."

What happened in Caledonia was that a group of radical Native Protesters choose to hold Caledonia hostage in order to force their political agenda on the Government. To further force their will upon the Government they used extreme violence against the Police and residents while setting fires as a weapon to intimidate and force economic harm upon Haldimand County. The numerous tire fires, the burning of the Stirling bridge, the numerous fires in fields and the attack on the power station were all designed to intimidate and force a political agenda.

In fact, if a group of Muslims had done the exact same thing in Caledonia they would have been arrested on charges of Terrorism.

As a country we invite people from all ethnic backgrounds to come and live in Canada. We tell them that, unlike their own country, Canada is a land of Equality and the Rule of Law. However, that is not the truth. In Canada, and clearly in the province of Ontario, there are certain people who are above the Criminal Code because the police and Crown's office have created a racially biased system.

No one has been arrested for the 6 weeks of blockades in 2006 and not one arrest has been laid for the 4 day blockade in April 2008. Not one arrest for the numerous fires in Caledonia.

But the question is WHY?

In May 1994 Mr. Bryant was a student at Harvard Law School and his final thesis was titled, "Legal aspects of Chiapas, Oka & Wounded Knee Conflicts: Intranational Armed Conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and States". The purpose of the thesis was to review three violent events - Chiapas in Mexico, Oka in Canada, Wounded Knee in the USA.

In 1988 Mr. Bryant wrote his MA Law Thesis at the University of British Columbia which was titled, "Canada and U.S. Public Policy on Aboriginal Land Claims 1960-1988: Alaska and British Columbia Compared".

I am fortunate enough to have a copy of both documents.

In describing the Oka event Mr. Bryant wrote, "Contributing to this extensive deployment was the Mohawk's own fortifications. At the time of the July 11 S.Q. raid, the Mohawks had approximately 75 men armed with shotguns, high powered and semi-automatic pistols, a magnum revolver, assault and semi-automatic AK-47 rifles, a fully automatic machine gun, and several thousand rounds of ammunition. Over time, the Mohawk Warriors made more contributions to their arsenal, including a semi-automatic machine gun capable of firing 450-600 rounds per minute and of penetrating an APC. After a preliminary assessment of Mohawk fortifications and arms, the Army concluded that the Mohawks were "a highly organized paramilitary force." Although newspapers reported that Mohawks had as many as 6000 guns, the more plausible figure of 500-600 was reported by Geoffrey York's text. Guns and ammunition continued to be smuggled in during the crisis, with a shipment of 80 AK-47s arriving in Kahnawake on the third or fourth week of the standoff. A number of decoys were also set, leading to television reports, for example, of a M72 rocket launcher. Similarly, it was never determined whether the wiring located on Mercier Bridge was actually an explosive or a hoax. A number of tank traps were set to halt APCs progress, and the bush in the Pines around Highway 138 was littered with lethal traps, resembling those the Vietnam veteran Warriors had perfected in that war. At its peak, as many as 500-600 Mohawks armed the fourteen bunkers and barricades surrounding the disputed territory." pg. 25-26

Mr. Bryant goes on to write on page 51, "While not suggesting that the past automatically reflects on future legal analysis of a particular conflict, there are good reasons for pause before lumping indigenous insurgents together with terrorists. This intuitive hesitation is supported by international legal doctrine suggesting that indigenous peoples carry some special international legal status importing special treatment. Leaving aside the merits of those arguments for now, there is further support for the idea that narrow categories of intranational armed conflicts also import international law to govern an armed conflict. Taken together, the question as to what law is master over an indigenous-State armed conflict seems less obvious..."

On page 112-113 Mr. Bryant states, "In order to make this argument, one returns to the broad indigenous self-government claim that there exists an indigenous right to special treatment under the criminal law. To date such rights have not been recognized, though surely will soon become part of the Crown-indigenous relationship as self-government agreements come to fruition... in Canada indigenous rights can never be infringed without regard to the Crown's constitution fiduciary duties. It follows that future conflict ought to be governed by this indigenous rights doctrine, if the broad self-governing rights are said to include matters of criminal jurisdiction."

In my view, it is greatly disturbing that a future Attorney General envisions a Canada where any group  of people is somehow above the criminal code or should receive special treatment under the criminal code.

This is exactly how institutional racism begins and flourishes.

In case anyone is wondering the Charter of Rights includes the following statements:

Section 27 "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians."

Section 15 "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."