Grim report warns Canada vulnerable to an aboriginal insurrection

[Fire Walk With Me]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/01/john-ivison-grim-report-warns-canada-vulnerable-to-an-aboriginal-insurrection/

This link does not appear to wish to allow cross-posting; there are only four paragraphs and when selected for copy, an "obtain license" query appears.

Aside from that point, if they have begun officially demonizing the First Nations, then they are genuinely worried about their positive effect. Good.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

1. Things are looking nasty for our neighbor to the North.

According to the National Post, one Douglas Bland, suggest that Canada has the “feasible” conditions for natives to upraise against the Canadian government, possibly violently.

[starroute]

2. This may be the more complete version of the story

http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.php/news/384-john-ivison-grim-report-warns-canada-vulnerable-to-an-aboriginal-insurrection#!/ccomment

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank laid out the options in two important essays released Wednesday. One paper, by Ken Coates and Brian Lee Crowley, outlines an optimistic vision where aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians find ways to collaborate on natural resource development, to the benefit of all.

A more pessimistic report, by Douglas Bland, suggests that Canada has all the necessary “feasibility” conditions for a violent native uprising — social fault lines; a large “warrior cohort”; an economy vulnerable to sabotage; a reluctance on the part of governments and security forces to confront aboriginal protests; and a sparsely populated country reliant on poorly defended key infrastructure like rail and electricity lines. . . .

There’s precious little sunshine in Douglas Bland’s paper, Co-operation or Conflict?

He took the accepted “feasibility” hypothesis, developed by researchers at Oxford University, as the basis for predicting civil unrest and applied it to Canada. The findings are scary enough to make you stock up on canned food and start digging your bunker.

In Canada, it seems, unrest is very feasibile.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. Does the article even begin to touch upon the travesties foisted upon the First Nations in CA?

Such as the land grabs for pipeline pathways, destruction of native land aquifers, Bill C45 removing 99% of Canada's waterways from the protected list (meaning corporations no longer need to present studies of the predicted after-effects of their actions against the waters):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022180809

What is occurring in Canada IS grounds for insurrection. Of course the mouthpieces demonize the victims and truth-tellers.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

4. No, its not a very thoughtful article.

Its split between promoting 'market friendly solutions', and fear mongering.

The 2 reports that its based on are written by a conservative, neo-liberal think tank*, and they make a few assumptions: That resource extraction is in everyone's best interests, permanent environmental degradation is not a factor, gobs of cash today negate traditional obligations to future generations, court challenges are not productive, and that somehow 600 different bands of first nations are going to suddenly unite.

*

The Institute professes to be strictly non-partisan and points to its name as a prime indicator of this intent. However, as a think tank directed by high-profile businesspeople with an emphasis on lowering business taxes, reducing government spending [2], privatizing the healthcare system [3] and "working toward a common security perimeter with the United States"[4] the institute's sympathies are on the right wing of the political spectrum. There are direct links between the founding of the institute and Jim Flaherty, the Conservative finance minister [5]. The founder of the institute (Brian Lee Crowley) has been a close advisor of Flaherty as well.[6] In addition, some of the institute's report writers have strong conservative views.[7] Moreover, links between Brian Lee Crowley and the right-wing Galen Institute [8] and intellectual debts to free market economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises [9] mark clearly its neoliberal position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald-Laurier_Institute#Controversy

The 2 reports: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/10303/

Though I'm no expert, I think the first and most likely course of action to the First Nations is through the supreme court, and for good reason; they tend to win. Though, that could change with Harper appointees.

Harpers preferred solution is to introduce legislation that would de-leverage government responsibility for the First Nations, by allowing for the first time private ownership of reserve land. By doing so he can divide and conquer the tribes by pitting those predisposed to flipping the properties to big business against those who view themselves as caretakers of past and future generations.

Of course altercations can happen such as Oka, Ipperwash, Gustafsen Lake Standoff etc, as well as highway and rail blockades, but if they escalate to violence, it'll be the Harper's brinkmanship or the RCMP's ham fisted ineptitude that escalates the tension.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Thank you for the detailed reply.

This is capitalism in direct confrontation with those who would save the natural world from it. We will win!

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. I'll surmise from the gist of the article that the Canadian government WANTS First Nations to try

violence because that would justify eliminating them as a threat to the capitalist destruction of the country. I'm also sure the First Nations are far too canny to fall for it.

Divide and conquer. Fear the peace-maker, join the destroyer. This harkens to Malcolm X's words regarding being careful to not listen to the papers and TV, lest you eat their poison and align againt those who are working for peace and truth.