[IPSM] First Nations Under Surveillance

[mattm-b at resist.ca]

http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/first-nations-under-surveillance/7434

First Nations Under Surveillance
Harper Government Prepares for First Nations “Unrest"

by Russell Diabo and Shiri Pasternak
Quebec riot police advance on Barriere Lake community members after a
peaceful blockade in October, 2008 in north-western Quebec.
Quebec riot police advance on Barriere Lake community members after a
peaceful blockade in October, 2008 in north-western Quebec.

Internal documents from Indian Affairs and the RCMP show that shortly
after forming government in January of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper
had the federal government tighten up on gathering and sharing
intelligence on First Nations to anticipate and manage potential First
Nation unrest across Canada.

Information obtained by Access to Information requests reveals that almost
immediately upon taking power in 2006, the Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was given the lead role to spy on First
Nations. The goal was to identify the First Nation leaders, participants
and outside supporters of First Nation occupations and protests, and to
closely monitor their actions.

To accomplish this task, INAC established a “Hot Spot Reporting System.”
These weekly reports highlight all those communities across the country
that engage in direct action to protect their lands and communities. They
include Tobique First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, the Algonquins of
Barriere Lake, Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) First Nation, Six Nations, Grassy
Narrows, Stz’uminous First Nation, the Likhts’amsiyu Clan of the
Wet’suwet’en First Nation, Gitxaala First Nation, Wagmatcook First Nation,
Innu of Labrador, Pikangikum First Nation, and many more. They include
bands from the coast of Vancouver Island to the shores of the Atlantic
Ocean.

What we see in these documents – from the hot spot reports themselves, to
the intelligence-sharing between government and security forces – is a
closely monitored population of First Nations, who clearly are causing a
panic at the highest levels of Canadian bureaucracy and political office.

Fear of Aboriginal "Hotspots"

In 2006, INAC gave the name “hot spots” to those First Nations conflicts
of “growing concern” due to “unrest” and increasing “militancy.” In a
briefing presentation that INAC gave the RCMP that year, they identified
certain communities as hotspots: Caledonia, Ontario (Douglas Creek Estates
occupation); Belleville, Ontario (Montreal/Toronto Rail Blockade in
sympathy to Caledonia); Brantford, Ontario (Grand River Conservation
Authority Lands); Desoronto, Ontario (Occupation of Quarry); Grassy
Narrows (Blockade of Trans Canada Hwy by environmentalists); and Maniwaki,
Quebec (Blockade of Route 117).

But the “hot spot binder” prepared each week by INAC officials closely
monitors any and all action taking place across the country and names
dozens more communities as sources of potential unrest. A particular
concern of the federal government is that these “hotspots” are
unpredictable protests because they are led by what the federal government
labels as “splinter groups” of “Aboriginal Extremists.”  As INAC describes
in the same presentation to the RCMP:

“Incidents led by splinter groups are arguably harder to manage as they
exist outside negotiation processes to resolve recognized grievances with
duly elected leaders. We seek to avoid giving standing to such splinter
groups so as not to debase the legally recognized government. Incidents
are also complicated by external groups such as Warrior Societies or
non-Aboriginal counter-protest groups.”

Telling in the INAC statement above is that the identified protests are
“outside of negotiation processes” with elected councils. Canada is
clearly spooked by the spectre of First Nations demanding Crown
recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, as well as
Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, beyond the narrow confines of Crown land
claims and self-government policies. These so-called “splinter” groups
also threaten the status quo by demanding their own First Nation leaders,
staff and advisors to pull out of the compromising negotiations.

Also telling here is the cozy cooperative relationship between INAC and
the RCMP. The INAC briefing to the RCMP is almost indistinguishable from a
presentation one would expect to see from security forces, rather than
from a government ministry. Contrary to their claims, Indian Affairs is
not an institution of reconciliation and negotiation, but rather appears
to be a management office to control the costs of Native unrest, and they
are willing to work closely with law enforcement to accomplish this task.

In addition to the hotspot reporting, the Deputy Ministers of Public
Safety Emergency Preparedness Canada and INAC directed that a summer
operational plan be prepared in 2006 to deal with Aboriginal occupations
and protests. A progress report on the operational plan reveals the
blueprint for security integration on First Nations issues.

The “Standing Information Sharing Forum,” for example, is Chaired by the
RCMP and includes as its members the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service (CSIS), the Department of Fisheries, Government of Canada, Natural
Resources Canada, Transportation Canada, and involves weekly conference
calls and continuous information dissemination by INAC to its partners.

Harper is moving towards a security paradigm familiar since the War on
Terror was launched in 2001. The inclusion of Transportation Canada at the
Information Sharing Forum should also alert us to the commercial threat of
blockades to the free trade agenda.

Aboriginal people who are defending their lands are now treated on a
spectrum from criminals to terrorists. On either side, under Harper, an
intensification of intelligence gathering and surveillance procedures now
govern the new regime.

Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy

It is also clear from INAC’s presentation to the RCMP that they are
particularly worried about the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois
Confederacy. They mention “Warrior Societies” and an “illicit agenda,”
referring at several points to concerns around smuggling. The federal
government deems the tobacco/cigarette trade as “illicit” because Canada
is not getting paid taxes by the Mohawks who are operating the businesses.

However, the 1995 federal Aboriginal Self-Government policy, which was
developed unilaterally by the federal government, does not allow for
sharing jurisdiction with First Nations for real powers over trade and
commerce matters.  The federal self-government policy only allows small
business operations on-reserve. Historically, the federal government has
used the Indian Act to control and manage on-reserve economic development
so there was no real competition with surrounding non-Indian businesses
and towns. On the prairies, First Nations agriculture was undermined and
led to the failure of farming on-reserve because of complaints from
non-Indians. This policy of non-competition is still the reality today.

The federal government is particularly concerned about the
Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy actions at Caledonia, as
the INAC 2006 report describes it: “Caledonia was and remains a
significant event in risk management.”

The RCMP agree. In a 2007 report to CSIS, they state: “Caledonia continues
to serve as a beacon on land claims and Aboriginal rights issues across
Canada.”

Canada is extremely worried about First Nations taking back lands and
resources outside the scope of their one-sided land claims and
self-government “negotiation processes,” as was done at
Kanenhstaton/Caledonia.

In order to contain the situation, the Crown governments have dispatched
hard-nosed, experienced negotiators who have presented unmovable positions
from the Harper government, which is likely why there hasn’t been any
negotiated resolution of the situation at Kanenhstaton/Caledonia to this
date. The Crown government obviously remain worried more lands will be
“occupied” by the Six Nations “extremist” “splinter groups.”

Ever since the 1990 stand-off in Kanesatake and Kahnawake, the federal
government, the security and police agencies, and the Canadian army have
been worried about a repeat of coordinated First Nation political actions
across Canada.

The 2007 National Day Of Action

Specific information about policing First Nations was obtained in a series
of Access to Information requests about the AFN National Day of Action
that took place on June 29th, 2007. A 2007 RCMP brief to CSIS lays out a
number of concerns regarding the National Day of Action.

First of all, the RCMP is mainly concerned about protecting their men and
women in uniform, both from the perspective of First Nations confronting
the police on front lines, and from the perspective of negative public
sentiment for their potential handling of the event: “The often disparate
and fractured nature of these events can lead the police to become the
proverbial ‘meat in the sandwich’ and the subject of negative public
sentiment.”

The RCMP also show concern that a lack of coordination, or “a fractured
and inconsistent approach” by police forces, could “galvanize Nations
throughout Canada.” Is this to say that violence instigated by police
could lead to solidarity actions by First Nations across the country? Or
that perceived weakness in policing could lead other First Nations to take
a stand? Either way, in response, cooperation between departments,
security forces, and ministries are deemed to be necessary to provide a
strong united front against First Nations protest.

The RCMP also caution that, “Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal extremists
often see these events as an opportunity to escalate or agitate the
conflict.” By inference, we can guess that they may be referring to groups
unaffiliated with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), unwilling to
negotiate under Crown policies, or prepared to engage in tactics not
sanctioned by the official leadership, such as property destruction and
armed conflict. Non-Aboriginal groups are also cited here as potentially
threatening, giving credence to recent targeting of G20 “ringleaders” who
feel their Indigenous solidarity work has made them targets of the Crown
and police forces.

Cost is a serious concern to the RCMP, as well. Not only is the price tag
for policing these nation-wide events “exorbitant,” and therefore can lead
to rash policing decisions to use force in order to bring a quick end to
conflicts, but the economic risks of blockades are themselves potentially
catastrophic. As the RCMP warn, “The recent CN strike represents the
extent in which a national railway blockade could effect the economy of
Canada.”

The RCMP also express this curious concern: “The police role may be
complicated by the conventional and sometimes political view that there is
a clear distinction between policy and police operations.” Clearly, where
the distinction slips between police and policy roles, the RCMP become
simply Indian Agents, carrying out the colonial work of the department.
Given the information disclosed here, this distinction is impossible to
maintain. Where police intimidate and arrest Indigenous peoples on their
own lands, there is no law on the police’s side.

There is also a considerable public relations issue at stake here. The
RCMP displayed concern at the potential fall-out of a number of
“perception” problems that could befall the forces:

“Perception of a two-tiered approach to enforcement can generate
significant criticism and motivate non-Aboriginal activists.”

“An intense and protracted event may lead to long-standing erosion of
relationships for the police and the community – they are usually always
the victims.”

“Because there are limitations on what the police can negotiate and
success often depends on others, the role of the police can become
frustrating.”

The RCMP realize to some extent that they must choose between First
Nations approval of their policing tactics and the wrath of a public
convinced that blockades are criminal, rather than political acts. The
police, however, contrary to their assertions, are not the victims here.
They are just the dupes in a much older game of cowboys and Indians.

The above RCMP statements show that even with all of the federal financial
and managerial control over First Nation Chiefs and Leaders, except,
apparently for the former AFN National Chief, Phil Fontaine, the Chiefs
and Leaders were still not entirely trusted by the federal government and
that a large concern in 2007 was the potential for a broad national
coordinated series of local and regional political actions by First
Nations.

One insight emerges strongly here: most threatening of all to security and
government forces is coordinated First Nations action. This can be seen
clearly from the reports. At one point in the 2007 INAC to RCMP briefing,
concern is expressed about a First Nations conference because, “The 2006
Numbered Treaty Conference proposed a ‘national’ movement of independent
actions to express discontent.”

Their fear is palpable where they follow the trajectory of the Day of
Action. It was first proposed by Chief Terrance Nelson at the Assembly of
First Nations' general assembly, where the motion carried. The nation-wide
event was later confirmed in a personal meeting between the RCMP
Commissioner and then-National Chief Phil Fontaine. “Mr. Fontaine
expressed his concern over the sense of frustration that seems to exist
among First Nation leaders and the growing resolve to support a June 29th
blockade,” a memo states.

The growing unrest, of course, cannot be resolved through greater
coordination of security and government forces. First Nation frustration
with this strategy will only continue to mount.

Crown Reward-Punishment System Divides Leaders and People

If coordinated action gets the goods, special attention must be paid to
the government’s particular interest in “splinter” groups.

Under Canada’s colonial system, the struggle for Indigenous sovereignty,
self-determination, Aboriginal and Treaty rights has historically been
undermined by First Nations who cooperated with the Crown government
turning in those First Nations who were resisting the Crown’s colonial
system.

Over time this evolved into the Crown dividing First Nations into the
“progressive” Indian Bands and the backward or “traditional” Indian Bands.
The federal government through the various Indian Affairs departments,
developed an approach to reward the “progressive” Indians and punish the
“traditional” Indians.

This federal reward-punishment approach still exists, though the “Indian
Agents” have been replaced by the Band Councils who now deliver Crown
programs and services to their community members. The Band Councils and
other First Nation organizations’ formula-funding are controlled by a
system of legislation, policies, terms and conditions – all designed,
controlled and managed largely by the federal Crown bureaucracy and
politicians in Ottawa.

The First Nations Chiefs and Leaders who become more known and prominent
are largely the individuals who have been trained and supported by federal
bureaucrats. These individuals become known for their seeming ability to
get federal capital dollars to build new houses, schools and other
community infrastructure, or additional program dollars for enhancing Band
programs.

However, the point is, none of these individuals would have gotten
anywhere without federal support to advance their political careers. This
is the reward system at work. For those Chiefs and Leaders who don not
cooperate with the federal government, they can be ignored and/or stalled
on funding requests. In some circumstances the federal government will
even support “splinter groups” to take out the offending Chief or Leader.
A current prominent example of this is the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in
Western Quebec, but this also occurred historically at the Six Nations
Grand River Territory.

The INAC and RCMP documents make it clear that while the Canadian State
Security Apparatus is concerned about “splinter groups,” they also are
somewhat concerned about Chiefs and Leaders from Indian Act Band Councils
and First Nation establishment organizations like AFN and their
Provincial/Territorial Organizations becoming Aboriginal “extremists.”

What the INAC and RCMP briefings show is that there needs to be unity on
the ground with coordinated political actions between First Nations
Peoples in order to protect, defend and advance First Nation pre-existing
sovereignty, and First Nation Aboriginal and Treaty rights to lands and
resources. Divide and conquer tactics can only be met with new strategies
of alliance-building, and by bringing the leadership back down to the
land.



An earlier version of this article appeared in the First Nations Strategic
Bulletin.





-- 
"...education alone will not raise mass consciousness to the point
necessary for resistance." - Kevin 'Rashid' Johnson, Minister of Defence,
New Afrikan Black Panther Party - Prison Chapter
_______________________________________________
fgn mailing list
fgn at lists.ipsm.ca
http://lists.ipsm.ca/listinfo.cgi/fgn-ipsm.ca


-- 
"...education alone will not raise mass consciousness to the point
necessary for resistance." - Kevin 'Rashid' Johnson, Minister of Defence,
New Afrikan Black Panther Party - Prison Chapter