Ontario versus the Indians: your law versus my law–and we all fall down

From an Aboriginal I know and respect.   He forwarded me the e-mail repeated below from the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty:   

From: dmcguinty@premier.gov.on.ca    Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:17:37 -0400

Conversation: An e-mail from the Premier of Ontario    Subject: An e-mail from the Premier of Ontario

Thank you for writing to me regarding the incarceration of Robert Lovelace of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation.

You may know that the determination to incarcerate Mr. Lovelace was made by the courts. The courts and judiciary operate independently of government, and therefore the province, and elected officials such as myself, have no authority over verdicts or sentences. Our government, however, continues to favour negotiation over litigation.

My colleagues and I are fully cognizant of our duty to consult with regard to the Frontenac exploration and other mining issues within the Algonquin land-claim area. To this end, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs provided $100,000 to the Algonquins of Ontario to help establish an office to assist them with consultations with the province.

You may also be interested to know that we have committed to reviewing the Mining Act, and work is already underway. The act needs to be modernized so that it reflects the values and expectations of 21st century Ontarians while ensuring that our province remains one of the best places in the world to do business in keeping with the principles of sustainable economic development.

Thank you again for sharing your views on issues that our government takes extremely seriously. Rest assured my colleagues and I will continue our work to foster strong and positive relationships with First Nations. Please accept my best wishes.

Dalton McGuinty,   Premier  Ontario

 I am not sure to whom this e-mail was originally sent, but it hits on the issues that interest me: the workings of the rule of law; the inactions of politicians; and the right for the individual to take the law in their own hands.  

In philosophy, we ask if a law is indeed a law if it is inherently unjust?  For example, were the retroactive statutes passed by Hitler to justify his actions in fact laws?   They were passed in full accord with the procedures of  the relevant regulatory bodies.   But many believe that did not make them “law” in the full sense of the word, for they argue that retroactive & immoral law, is just not a law.

Then there are the French, who believe that law is a social contract: they way people agree to live together is what constitutes law.  In this case, clearly the Algonquin and the Ontarioans have not concurred to live “together” in any way that both parties could agree one, so maybe this, by the French perspective, is just a “lawless” situation.

American believe law is what the judge says, regardless of which side of the bed he arises in the morning.   That perspective of  law is possible where there is a fundamental constitution that you can regard as, well, fundamental.

The British, and hence the Canadian, consider law to be that which is passed by  an authorized body and signed by a monarch, or their derivative.   By this definition, the Indians are in jail by virtue of a valid law. 

I do not know the basis of jurisprudence amongst the Canadian aboriginals.  Maybe it is just the law of the jungle: your tribe against mine; power makes right; the individual and his cousins are free to act in accordance with their conscience and the ways of the ancestors, subject only to the approbation of the chief.  Maybe the aboriginals in this case truly believe they are acting in accordance with “law”, their law.

Thus we have a clear case of conflict of law.  That takes us into another area of law, namely International law, where concept are more relevant than power, police, or courts.  Ultimately in a case of conflict of international law, might prevails.  We try to turn to international bodies like the United Nations, but why pursue that line of reasoning in the light of reality. 

May I thus conclude that in this situation we have a seeming irreconcilable conflict of “international law” where might rules.  Thus in this case, while some may decry a seeming absence of “justice” at least peace prevails.  And that is the point of it all: namely   ”peace.”  Young men seeking to impress breeding partners may espouse non-peace, but the rest of us prefer peace.   If you do not, you soon devolve into a situation like that in the movie Fight Club–pure anarchy, fun for the young, but pretty destructive for  the rest of us. 

If I offend with these remarks, that is precisely what I aim to do.  Comment below.  And below is one comment from the Aboriginal who sent me the Premier’s e-mail.

So the Aboriginal leadership is in jail..and no drilling or exploration that I am aware of.. Still another 600 people out there in the hinterland..really pissed and not enough troops available to protect the drillers..so who wins and what’s the pointSomehow that is missed in the messageWhat are the long-term implications for the investors and owners? Missed that part as well..what about future relationships whoops…missed that as well. OH well..we keep plugging along and continue to listen to the beer-swillers cheering themselves and the government about the great victory over the rapple-rousing - at last we put them in there place– crazy ‘Indians”. I guess we showed them and once again SHOWED THEM WHO’S IN CHARGE..YIKES.

PS. After writing the above, I came across a detailed report.   I quote part that tells of the Algonquin law:

The case went to court in February. While charges against the non-natives were withdrawn, Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham told the Algonquins to submit to the injunction or go to jail.

All but one agreed. The exception was Bob Lovelace, 59, a former chief who teaches at Queen’s University in Kingston.

“I am in a dilemma,” he told the court. “I want to obey Canadian law, but Algonquin law instructs me that I must preserve Creation. I must follow Algonquin law.”

“There can only be one law – the law of Canada as expressed in this court,” Cunningham replied as he imposed a six-month jail term and a $25,000 fine.

There you have it: the Indian law is “preserve Creation.”   Fine and good, but do not let other religious groups get hold of that one, for if they do, we are in for a fine time of it.  Constantine and Theodosius excluded.