[IPSM] Day of (In)Action (fwd)
Jaggi Singh
jaggi at resist.ca
Fri Jul 6 19:49:26 PDT 2007
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:28:15 -0700
From: Warrior Publications <warrior-publications at hotmail.com>
To: indigenousactiongroup at yahoo.ca
Subject: Day of (In)Action
Analysis of AFN’s National Day of (In)Action
By Warrior-Publications at hotmail.com, July 2007
“With the exception of several cancelled trains & a few thousand inconvenienced
motorists, Friday’s national day of action by the Assembly of First Nations was
more one of inaction.”
(“Protests interrupt traffic,” Mark Brennae, Vancouver Sun, June 30,
2007)
As predicted, the Assembly of First Nation’s ‘National Day of Action’ (NDOA) on
June 29, 2007, was characterized by its spectacular lack of action (see
Warrior, No. 3). Despite this, AFN chief Phil Fontaine called it an
“overwhelming success and show of support.” Greatly exaggerating how many
people it mobilized & the extent of protests, he described it as “a hundred
thousand strong
one of the largest rallies in Canadian history based on the
sheer number of events
” (AFN Press Release, June 29, 2007).
The largest rally of the day was held in Ottawa, with approximately
2,000 people gathering for speeches & musical performances. In Vancouver,
Winnipeg, & Toronto, as many as 500 may have participated in each. Smaller
protests were held in Victoria, Edmonton, Whitehorse, Regina, Kenora, Guelph,
Kingston, Montreal, and along the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border. The AFN
claims there were over 100 rallies across the country, although there were far
less than 100,000 people participating (perhaps at the most 5,000 people, by no
means all Natives).
While such a turnout would be considered a great success by grassroots
organizers, the AFN is a multi-million dollar state-funded organization, with a
large staff, regional offices, and directly connected to some 630 Indian Act
band council chiefs across the country. The AFN’s National DOA also benefited
from months of corporate media hype leading up to June 29th.
In addition, the train & highway blockades at Tyendinaga reserve in
eastern Ontario received most of the media spotlight, despite the fact that the
AFN & band council chiefs continually denounced and distanced themselves from
any form of direct action proposed by the Tyendinaga Mohawks.
An editorial in the Globe & Mail the following day acknowledged that
the Tyendinaga Mohawks had, in fact, stolen the show:
“The irony is that most of the cross-country protests were peaceful
demonstrations
But many Canadians will simply remember that, on the cusp of
the Canada Day long weekend, a portion of the nation’s busiest highway was
closed for hours & passenger rail service from Toronto to Ottawa & Montreal was
suspended.”
(“The day of protest & the blockades,” Editorial, Globe & Mail, June
30, 2007)
‘Good Indians’ Rewarded by Government
In April 2007, federal Indian Affairs minister Jim Prentice warned band
councils, and the AFN, that any militant actions such as blockades could result
in funding cuts. Relations between Canada & the AFN appeared tense as the
media hyped up the National DOA as one of potential confrontation. Roseau
River band chief Terrance Nelson added fuel to this smoldering fire with
threats of blockading trains in southern Manitoba & his calls for ‘economic
disruption’ (along with the Tyendinaga Mohawks in eastern Ontario).
In June, however, Prentice and the federal government announced a major
overhaul of the Indian Claims Commission (ICC), a government body that oversees
Native land claims. Through new legislation to be introduced in the fall, the
ICC would be made into a more ‘independent’ body with a panel of 3 judges and
the ability to make binding decisions, measures designed to speed up the
resolution of nearly 800 land claims across the country.
On June 20, Prentice announced that 75 acres of new reserve land would
be added to the Roseau River band, defusing any potential conflict arising from
chief Nelson’s threatened blockade. Despite his fiery rhetoric prior to this,
Nelson announced there would be no blockades as a result, and that the land
would be used to build a gas station, a cigarette shop, and video-lottery
terminals. A week and a half prior to this, Nelson had written a letter to the
CEO of Canadian National stating that, if both CN & Canadian Pacific Railway
helped pressure the government to resolve the claim,
“Roseau River will not threaten or engage in any railway blockades for
5 years from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2012
” (Letter from Terrance Nelson to
CN CEO Hunter Harrison, June 11, 2007).
Chief Nelson originally launched the resolution for a National DOA back in
December, 2006 (see Warrior, No. 3), citing the lack of progress in land claims
as well as a specific claim by the Roseau River band. In 1996, Canada
acknowledged the shortage of 5,861 acres of land for the band’s reserve, as
stipulated in the 1871 Treaty No. 1.
In response to these reforms & concessions, some politicians criticized the
government for rewarding those that threatened blockades. Liberal MP Anita
Neville said “There are many, many other first nations out there who are not
threatening blockades, who are not threatening disobedience, and I hope Mr.
Prentice will give them the same attention that he gave Terry Nelson” (“Ottawa
gives land to band threatening blockade,” Globe & Mail, June 21, 2007).
As if on cue, Prentice did just that. In BC, where 44% of land claims
are based, Prentice announced major settlements of outstanding claims with 4
bands on June 25, worth a total of $7 million. These were the Skeechestn,
Oregon Jack Creek, Osoyoos, and Mamalilikulla bands. Prentice made the
announcement while speaking to the Business Council of BC, saying the land
claims process was “intolerably slow” (“Federal government comes to terms with
five native land claims,” Vancouver Sun, June 26, 2007; why is business
interested in Native land claims? Because it creates economic certainty for
investors).
AFN & Police Collaboration
The government & its partners in crime, the corporations, were clearly
pleased with the AFN’s Day of (In)Action. Indian affairs minister Jim
Prentice: “I think with the exception of what we experienced with illegal
blockades in eastern Ontario, I think it has been a good day
It’s been a good
day for democracy
” (“Protests interrupt traffic,” Vancouver Sun, June 30,
2007)
Angus Armstrong, head of security for the Toronto Port Authority, said in
regards to the NDOA in that city: “It all went very, very well & I thought it
was an extremely good event” (“Traditional songs, protests & pizza,” Globe &
Mail, June 30, 2007).
That no actions would be taken was clear to many from the outset, but was
reaffirmed on June 27 when Fontaine, flanked by senior officers from the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and Surete du
Quebec (SQ- Quebec provincial police), warned potential ‘trouble-makers’ that
they must be prepared to face the consequences for any illegal actions.
Referring to threats of blockades & disruption, Fontaine stated these were
“isolated comments and do not reflect the position of the AFN, or the many
First Nations across the country” (AFN Press Release, June 27, 2007).
For their part, police were more than happy to stand with Fontaine in
an effort to bolster their credibility with Natives, which has taken a beating
due to ongoing violence & abuse inflicted on Indigenous peoples by police,
including Six Nations in 2006, and the recent inquiry into the 1995 Ipperwash
OPP shooting of Dudley George. Just prior to the NDOA, OPP commissioner Julian
Fantino stated: “We’re certainly in a position where we want to demonstrate
goodwill
We certainly don’t want to become the cause of conflict” (The
Province, June 29, 2007).
Across the country, police focused on traffic control and public
relations work. OPP commissioner Fantino rationalized this approach based on
discussions with the AFN: “I am assured by the First Nation’s leadership that
the NDOA is a call for peaceful activity
To ensure a safe start to the Canada
Day long weekend, we ask people to be patient and respectful of each other”
(OPP Press Release, June 27, 2007).
The only potential problem for police (and the AFN) were the proposed
blockades by Tyendinaga Mohawks. In response, CN cancelled service on this
section of its railways for the day, while the OPP closed down Hwy. 401—a major
link between Toronto & Montreal—before the Mohawks had a chance to block it.
So as to not appear as ‘weak’ or vulnerable to threats of economic
disruption & confrontation, CN & the OPP issued statements the following day
rationalizing and revising their positions. For its part, CN expressed
“frustration” with the OPP for not enforcing an injunction against blockades in
Tyendinaga, obtained back in April 2007 (even though CN itself cancelled
service on that line June 29th).
The OPP, in turn, revealed its strategy for policing the protests: they
had consulted psychologists across the country who advised them to play it
cool. One of these psychologists, according to media reports, was Mike
Webster. An advisor to the RCMP & FBI, Webster was involved in ‘negotiations’
at the Waco massacre in 1993, the Native standoff at Gustafsen Lake in 1995
(where RCMP attempted to kill Native defenders), and the massacre of Tupac
Amaru guerrillas in Lima, Peru, in 1997.
Webster, who is a psychological warfare consultant to police & military
forces, stated:
“This is Canada’s dirty little secret, how aboriginal people have been
treated. I’ve told police before, ‘The best thing you can do is cross the line
& stand over there with them’” (“How police stared down natives,” Globe & Mail,
June 30, 2007; this statement itself is a form of psychological warfare to
establish Webster as a sympathizer & ’friend’ to Natives. His use of the term
‘dirty little secret’ is lifted from an article by Fontaine published in the
Globe & Mail).
In regards to militancy, the AFN, in part, consciously used the day of protests
as a safety valve:
“We understand the frustration that exists among too many of our people. Our
objective in organizing the National Day of Action is to provide a positive
channel for that energy” (June 27 Press Release).
Perception & Response
In discussion forums prior to June 29 (see Warrior, No. 3), many
Natives expressed support for a ‘day of action’, indicating a high level of
support for direct action in general. The AFN’s militant-sounding ‘day of
action’ clearly appealed to grassroots Natives. At the same time, many appear
to have a poor analysis of what the AFN’s role is as an agent of colonialism
and are unable to separate rhetoric from reality.
In order to fulfill its role as a neocolonial administrator, the AFN
must portray itself as a defender of Native peoples, at times appearing as if
in conflict with the government. The National DOA achieves this goal, while
government concessions serve to strengthen the AFN as a credible organization
advancing the interests of Indigenous peoples (thereby undermining the real
resistance movement).
Well-intentioned but naïve non-Native supporters also jumped on the
band council wagon, issuing public statements in support of the National DOA
and even organizing solidarity events. The Kingston Mohawk Support Network
(KMSN), for example, organized a protest on June 29. Well known media activist
Naomi Klein also publicly supported the NDOA (although these examples were
largely based on solidarity with the Tyendinaga Mohawks).
In Guelph, Ontario, a chapter of the Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement
(IPSM) organized a rally on June 29 in support of local Algonquin land
struggles, stating “We want to make it clear that we do not support the AFN
”
Like the Tyendinaga Mohawks and their supporters, the Guelph-IPSM apparently
thought that by distancing themselves from the AFN, their activities would not
be viewed as coming under the AFN banner. Yet, for many Natives (and
non-Natives), any protests occurring on this day can only appear as part of the
AFN’s mobilization (which is why Warrior Publications called for a boycott, see
Warrior, No. 3).
Some Native community organizers, even though they understand the neocolonial
role of the AFN & band councils, supported the AFN’s National DOA based on the
principle of unity. While unity is vital to our movement, we must make a clear
distinction between grassroots resistance & the Indian Act collaborators. In
addition, asking people to support corrupt, unaccountable & dysfunctional
leadership only weakens & undermines our cause. Real unity is the result of
common interests & goals, which are revealed through struggle and which do not
materialize out of thin air or political rhetoric. It is clear that the
interests of the AFN & collaborator chiefs lie with government & business, and
not with Indigenous peoples, lands or cultures.
Conclusion
The AFN’s National Day of Action was one of symbolic protests and an
appeal to the government for reforms & more funding. It was characterized by
official sanction & support from both government & business (including police &
media). Through reforms & concessions, the government has bolstered the
credibility of the AFN as a legitimate representative of Indigenous peoples.
At the same time, there is clearly support from many Natives for direct action
and, by extension, Indigenous resistance. With stronger organization,
communication & solidarity, there is great potential for our resistance
movement to expand. A crucial first step is unity within our own ranks on
tactics, strategies, and objectives. Although the Tyendinaga Mohawks served as
a ‘spoiler’ for the National DOA, in the future we should be able to organize
our own national days of resistance & action without having to appear as if
supporting the AFN & Indian Act collaborators.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is the next generation of MSN Hotmail. It’s fast, simple,
and safer than ever and best of all – it’s still free. Try it today!
www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA146
More information about the IPSM-l
mailing list