Another settler land grab

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug Woodard
Another settler land grab

*****

Doug Woodard

A housing development  underway on disputed land at Oka:

http://www.cbc.ca/1.4202243

Evidently our governments are very slow learners. We will soon learn more about what Justin Trudeau is made of. I'm not optimistic.

Rev Pesky

It's interesting to me that in this story there is no conversation with the developer. According to the story, the developer reached an agreement with the Mohawk council back in 2003. The Mohawk grand chief says there are no agreements on file. So if I'm writing the story, I call the developer and see what they have to say. Do they have any record of formal or informal talks and agreements? The story's writer stopped before getting that far. Sloppy journalism if you ask me.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
Rev Pesky

Again, I didn't see any conversation with the developer. According to the CBC story the developer negotiated directly with the Mohawk Council. Is that true or not? Why doesn't someone ask the developer?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yes gabriel acknowledges that or at least the mayor did. and as she points out that band council represents less than 1/4 of the people.  

..there are ongoing struggles against band councils that are being used to make decisions over greater indigenous territory where they have no jurisdiction. this is seen in bc re pipelines and lng. i believe this is what gabriel is talking about. 

Rev Pesky

This may seem like a dumb question, but if I'm a developer and want to reach an agreement with the Mohawk First Nation, who do I negotiate with?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..your question seems rhetorical rev. i believe in this case the developers fully understood this was disputed land. then tried to make an end run around the longhouse people anyway. not for a second do i feel badly for those vultures. not for a second do i believe the problem lies with the mohawk. 

Rev Pesky

The question was not rhetorical. It was a real question, looking for a real answer. If the Mohawk Council is not entitled to make decisions, or come to agreements, with outsiders, who then would the outsider turn to? 

In one of your posts above, you have Gabriel apparently saying the council didn't really represent the people. Fine with me, but then who does represent them, Gabriel? A pretty simple question.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it's easy enough to do the researcher if you really want to know. 

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's easy enough to do the researcher if you really want to know. 

It may be simple, but apparently it's not simple enough for you to just tell me.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it was rhetorical after all. or do you want to build condos? what ever it is your insinuating i'm not interested. 

eta: 

..having said the above maybe i'm wrong. but if you really do want that kind of info maybe you need to be talking to someone from the mohawk nation. i don't have the knowledge you seek. 

Rev Pesky

Well. perhaps a better question would be, who has jurisdiction? Who has the authority to represent the Mohawk First Nation? 

I'm sure you can see the problem. I, or anyone, go to the Mohawk Council to discuss development of property they have control of. I reach an agreement with the duly elected council, but before I can go ahead with the development, someone else comes along and says the Council does not have the authority to reach an agreement with me, or anyone else. Then they tell me (without a shred of evidence) that this is just another settler land grab.

So I ask this person who can I go to to see about doing a development. What do they tell me? No one has the right to negotiate with me?

I found it interesting that not one single reporter thought to go to the developer and see what they had to say. Was their an agreement, was it in fact a land grab, or more likely a development in which the Mohawk Council and the developer each had shares (else why would the Council agree to anything?).

The only conclusion one can reach then, is that the Mohawk Council is not  competent to negotiate a deal for development of their land. Now that is a colonial attitude.

6079_Smith_W

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mohawks-protest-at-oka-develo...

The Montreal Gazette spoke with the developer. He denies that he is infringing on disputed land. No surprise.

As epaulo said, if you want to find if that information is there you can look.

Gabriel said in her interview that part of the problem is that the federal government passed a law in 2000 which constituted a land grab, and which her group does not recognize. The important question isn't who one goes to to approve development, since in this case there does not seem to be any agreement on paper.

Ultimately the responsibility in this case falls on the municipal government, because they gave approval on land that was disputed. That is why the mayor is complaining the city will likely be sued if the project is stopped, not the Mohawk Council.

 

NDPP

The question of jurisdiction is central to all of these problems as is the usurpation by Canada and its imposed administrative units. As was succinctly stated to me by a Mohawk traditionalist friend,  "We had jurisdiction when we had the power to enforce it."

Rev Pesky

From NDPP:

As was succinctly stated to me by a Mohawk traditionalist friend,  "We had jurisdiction when we had the power to enforce it."

So the Mohawk are not opposed to the use of force to enable jurisdiction. Are they are only opposed to force when someone else uses it?

6079_Smith_W

The power to enforce jurisdiction is not the same as the use of force Rev, even if you want to spin it that way.

Rev Pesky

From an article posted by 6079_Smith_W:

And while the municipality of Oka and the Kanesatake Mohawk Council signed a deal to prevent development in the forest, it would appear this housing development is testing the limits of that agreement.

“See all this land? This is Kanesatake. It doesn’t belong to Oka, it belongs to the (Mohawk) people of Kanesatake,” said Ellen Gabriel, during a tense exchange with Oka mayor Pascal Quevillon. “We’re not going to allow you to build any more homes on our land.”

...Quevillon insists the development is hardly news. He says it has been planned since 2003 and Kanesatake’s band council has been consulted about the project.

“The only thing that’s changed here is the land developer installed sewage aqueducts,” Quevillon said. “The hydro line was installed, so some trees were cleared. But there’s no, no, no plan to expand this plot into the pines. I’ll be the first to protect them.”

...“(Quevillon) is acting in bad faith, it’s plain and simple,” Simon told the Montreal Gazette. “We were never consulted about this. Maybe an older council was back in 2003, but not us. We have a legal right to be consulted here.”

Grégoire Gollin, the developer, said his project will not expand into the pines.

“There never will be development in the pines,” Gollin said. “It’s a commitment I’ve made and I intend on keeping that commitment. It’s a place that will remain sacred. As it should.”

...“We’re not allowing any more development to continue,” Gabriel said. “Twenty-seven years ago they didn’t listen to us, they never settled the problem. … If Prime Minister Trudeau truly believes his most important relationship is with Indigenous people, he has to intervene. Because this is not going to go away.”

Note Ellen Gabriel is the only one 'disputing' the land. The current Mohawk chief, Serge Simon, is not disupting ownership of the land, but the terms of the agreement that was reached between the Mohawk Council and the municipaility in 2003. That former council agreed to the development, and Simon says he wants to reach a new agreement.

6079_Smith_W

From that same article:

The chief believes the new construction may also violate Kanesatake’s land claim and has reached out to his lawyer as well as the federal negotiator in charge of the file

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The Montreal Gazette spoke with the developer. He denies that he is infringing on disputed land. No surprise.

Anyone remember "The Norm Show", where Canadian comic Norm Macdonald played, of all things, a social worker?

In one episode his boss confronts him, accusing him of having a drug problem.

"No, I don't have a drug problem", Norm replies.

"Ha!" says his boss.  "Denying you have a drug problem is the first sign of having a drug problem".

"Uh, but wouldn't it also be the first sign of NOT having a drug problem?", says Norm.

Norm had a point.  If denying you did something wrong becomes proof that you did something wrong, what options are left that aren't Kafka-esque?

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

From that same article:

The chief believes the new construction may also violate Kanesatake’s land claim and has reached out to his lawyer as well as the federal negotiator in charge of the file

Pardon me for saying so, but believing that something 'may' be true is not the same thing as saying it is true. It is obvious the chief is hedging his bets a little, and perhaps playing a bit to the locals.

​But according to other information, the specific land that is to be developed was already dealt with back in 2000, so who's grabbing land from whom is a question.

​One other thing, the thread title refers to 'settler'. Can someone give me a definition of settler, as used here?

6079_Smith_W

You said Simon isn't disputing title. My point is that he is considering whether there is a dispute, which opens the door to him taking a position similar to Gabriel's.

And even if he doesn't, surely you don't think Indigenous governments always do the right thing and act in the best interests of the electorate. Doesn't happen with our governments; why should you think it is the case with them?

And Magoo, under what circumstances would you think he would say that yes, he does intend to build on disputed land? My point is that whether he is lying or beng honest, it is no surprise that he would say what he did.

Besides, going by the story the responsible party here is the city; unless the developer has some signed agreement with the Mohawk Council he is a side player here.

 

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

...the responsible party here is the city; unless the developer has some signed agreement with the Mohawk Council he is a side player here.

Actually, the developer doesn't need any agreement with the Mohawk Council because the land in question is not part of Mohawk land. Ellen Gabriel is disputing that, but who does she represent? 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

imho..to view what is going on in the mohawk territory through the eyes of a developer is the wrong approach. for one thing the analysis is skin deep. to understand you need to look back. back to when band councils where formed as a power play by canada. these councils disrupted the traditional mohawk governing clan mother processes. this was rejected back then and it is not fully accepted today. in spite of the rejection canada proceeded via the band and ignored the traditional government. fast forward today ellen gabriel speaks to this in the video post up thread.

..from a pdf doc

quote:

Rev Pesky

You know what, I like that idea of clan mothers. Maybe next government we have could be removed from office by Queen Elizabeth, our clan mother.

Democracy has disrupted every previous form of government, clan mothers, clan fathers, kings, princes, dictators, you name it. I find it interesting that leftists, who support democracy as a form of government all over the world, for every culture and ethnic group, cannot get their head around democracy for First Nations.

quizzical

`democracy has disrupted....`

has it really?

guess it`s in the eye of the beholder.

 i think the clan mother aspect of Aborignal society scared the shit out of european patriarchy back in the day and it`s why they decimated  our peoples and societies.

6079_Smith_W

Two things:

Simon is also looking at whether there is a land claims dispute here, and has already said there are violations of the agreement. He has not said that he thinks Gabriel is wrong.

And secondly, unless you also think our governments do no wrong and always reflect the will of the people I am not sure what you are on about here. Do you also dismiss every other group or NGO pushing for social issues or fighting bad government decisions simply because they are not elected? Do you think they are a threat to democracy?

How? No one is stopping the council from doing its job, and people have every right to question whether their government is representing their interests, challenge government decisions when they think they don't. That goes for First Nations people as much as for us.

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Pesky

FRrom 6079_Smith_W (standing in for others with the same, more or less, comment):

...secondly, unless you also think our governments do no wrong and always reflect the will of the people I am not sure what you are on about here.

I was responding to an article posted by epaulo13, which stated, in part:

​In January 1990, clan mothers appointed a new chief and council...

I merely pointed out that no one the left would accept that method of putting a government in place. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the left is no longer in favour of democratic governance. If that is the case, you can count me out of the left.

My view is that the left has always favoured democracy, and fought long and hard to achieve it. That is true in all countries of the world. Does that mean governments always do the right thing? No, it doesn't. But what I'm seeing here are leftists who somehow think turning back the clock to some former 'golden age' will solve problems. 

What epaulo13, and others, seem to be saying is that First Nations people are not ready for democratic government. Well, you'll be happy to know that you agree with most of those grand old patriarchs, like the Kings of England, the feudal lords of Europe, and a raft of other ancient and present day rulers who really dislike democracy.

6079_Smith_W

Really?

It just happened in British Columbia. The democratically elected premier wanted to call a new election, and the unelected lieutenant governor turned her down and named a new premier. I expect some people on the left were very pleased with that outcome.

I think you are twisting intent and words here, just as you were by confusing enforcement with the use of force. No one is opposing democratic institutions, but elected bodies are only one aspect of democracy and governance.

Bottom line though, it really is none of your business how they structure their government, and I question whether your intent really is the improvement of other people's democracy, or to just undermine those who see violation of a land claim.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i agree. your twisting rev

Sean in Ottawa

There could be legitimate positions held by the developer and other parties.

The context for all this is long running systemic injustice to First Nations people and inaction on land claims. The fact that we have land claims neglected and ignored will always be central to this until they are no longer ignored. The majority of people cannot afford legal services.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

I think you are twisting intent and words here, just as you were by confusing enforcement with the use of force.

I think you'd better get your dictionary out and see what 'enforcement' means. From my trusty etymology dictionary:

enforcement (n.) Look up enforcement at Dictionary.comlate 15c., "constraint, compulsion," from Old French enforcement "strengthening, fortification...compulsion, coercion;" from enforcier; see enforce + -ment. Meaning "compelling of obedience to a law, etc." is from 1680s.

It's not me that's implying force. It is the word itself. By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what was meant by the word 'settler' it the thread title.

6079_Smith_W

It means anyone who has arrived after European contact, ffs. And the power to enforce is as simple as getting a court order, or in this case, giving or refusing a permit. That does not inherently mean use of force. It just means having clear jurisdiction, not having everything controled up by federal government paternalism.

6079_Smith_W

Etymology? That is not the same as definition.

You want to spin it as "use of force" as when what you are really talking about every government and anyone in a position of authority.

Most enforcement doesn't involve use of force. in most jurisdictions I am familiar with they just don't license your car any more if you don't pay the fines.

And I once had to enforce a court order to garnishee wages of an employee for child support. The only force I used was pushing a pen across the cheque to the province.

6079_Smith_W

Good interview this morning with Sakimay chief Lynn Acoose at the AFN meeting in Regina. She points out that rebuilding Indigenous governance systems is part of decolonization, and that at the time of the treaties, government refused to meet with women chiefs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/the-time-is-here-sask-has-record...

That does not just mean elected officials. The clan system is part of Mohawk governance.

 

 

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

It means anyone who has arrived after European contact, ffs. And the power to enforce is as simple as getting a court order, or in this case, giving or refusing a permit.

In which case 'settler' doesn't apply here because we​'re not talking about people who 'arrived' here, we're talking about people who were born here.

​As far as enforcement, try and enforce a court order without the implied threat of physical force. It may not be necessary to use force in every case, but the possiblity that it can be used is clear to everyone. Take that implied force away, and your court order isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

6079_Smith_W

The dispute involves the village of Oka. That is why the mayor is claiming they might get sued. It also involves the government of Canada allegedly turning over disputed land. It is all about settler authority encroaching on First Nations territory.

And no, enforcement does not by definition involve the use of force. Again, garnisheeing or applying a lein do not. You don't get punched; you just don't get the money you owe, or you don't get to sell the property until you pay your debt.

The only reason why you are making this nonsense argument is because you are trying to spin a legitimate comment about Indigenous people having control over their jurisdiction into a smear about resorting to violence.

Rev Pesky

Okay, now you're going to have to define 'settler authority'. What the hell does that mean.

And you're absolutely wrong about the word 'enforcement'. The itself even contains 'force', so I have no idea where you get the idea it doesn't imply force. Every good leftist should know that at it's base, the state is military force. 

And by the way, it was the clear implication in the original comment about enforcement. So don't try and remove that implication.

6079_Smith_W

Right, and bumbling contains the words "bum" and "bling", so that proves that.  Aside from the fact I'm not your dictionary, you seem to have your own ideas about what words mean, so what's the point?

My point is you pulling this smear out of nowhere:

Are they are only opposed to force when someone else uses it?

There is no indication that anyone is going to resort to use of force, and no one has said anything to indicate a double standard around it. In fact no one said anything remotely like that. You're just taking something a friend of NDPP's said about having the power to enforce their own laws, and spinning it into an false assumption about all Mohawk people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

There is a similar situation happening in Winnipeg regarding the development of a wooded area. Many are calling for the Metis Nation to be given a say in the outcome, given the recent court finding that they are owed territory in the city.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-parker-lands-consultatioo...

That settler land grab happened back in 1870, when Canada completely ignored the Act it signed bringing Manitoba into confederation.

So far, the courts have denied the developers an injunction to remove protesters who are preventing work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-parker-lands-protesters-...

 

 

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

You know what, I like that idea of clan mothers. Maybe next government we have could be removed from office by Queen Elizabeth, our clan mother.

Democracy has disrupted every previous form of government, clan mothers, clan fathers, kings, princes, dictators, you name it. I find it interesting that leftists, who support democracy as a form of government all over the world, for every culture and ethnic group, cannot get their head around democracy for First Nations.

The band system imposed on Indigenous people in Canada is systemically flawed. One of the flaws is that people in family-based bands tend to understandably vote along familial lines, so the band system is prone to nepotism. Another major structural flaw of the band system is that voters in the band don't pay taxes directly to the band government that pays the chief, council and administration, so the link between the governors and governed is weaker than it should be as the incentive to be a "watchdog" of your government is also too weak. This leaves the system open to corruption as people view the band as just being a money cow because that's what it is for members of the band. So this is why a system that gives power to elders and matriarchs might function much better than simply one person, one vote.

Another flaw of the band system is it tends to favour members who live on reserve and tends to disenfranchise members who live off reserve. It is usually difficult for members who live off reserve to be chief or council members. These people are often the most educated band members.

If "democracy" was the be all and end all of decision making than it would govern our families, social groups, and businesses. But these systems would disintegrate if a democratic one-person, one-vote system was imposed upon them.

It should be noted that our courts are also not elected bodies for a very good reason.

It should also be noted that within political science "democracy" does not equal "elections."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But these systems would disintegrate if a democratic one-person, one-vote system was imposed upon them.

Well, it would surely kill families, because if you and your spouse had three kids, you really can't just have gummie bears for dinner because "the people have spoken".  The law does tend to disadvantage toddlers that way.

As far as "social groups" go, I think many of them subscribe to democratic forms of governance, with, I suppose, some leeway granted to acknowledge that just because you've paid your fees and are a member of the "XYZ Club", you don't necessarily have special knowledge of their costs or revenues, and can't really decide, as an equal, how they should balance those.

As far as businesses go, it's a bit like a sailing ship:  should everyone's hand be on the wheel?  I suppose, in the case of co-ops and similar, it is.

And just for fun:  know what else isn't a democracy??  Guess!!

rabble.ca

Isn't that the usual (and understandable) criticism of the Royals?  Or any other heritiable dynasty?

A part of me really thinks it's not my place to say, but another part of me wonders whether that means we can't agree with those who

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Right, and bumbling contains the words "bum" and "bling", so that proves that.  Aside from the fact I'm not your dictionary, you seem to have your own ideas about what words mean, so what's the point?

 A standard definition of 'enforce' and it's history:

enforce (v.) Look up enforce at Dictionary.com mid-14c., "to drive by physical force; to try, attempt, strive; to fortify, strengthen a place;" late 14c. as "exert force, compel; make stronger, reinforce; strengthen an argument; grow stronger, become violent," from Old French enforcier "strengthen, reinforce; use force (on), offer violence (to); oppress; violate, rape" (12c.) or a native formation from en- (1) "make, put in" + force (n.). Meaning "compel obedience to (a law, etc.) is from 1640s. Related: Enforced; enforcing.

enforcement (n.) Look up enforcement at Dictionary.comlate 15c., "constraint, compulsion," from Old French enforcement "strengthening, fortification; rape; compulsion, coercion;" from enforcier; see enforce + -ment. Meaning "compelling of obedience to a law, etc." is from 1680s.

So I'm not just making it up, but of course you already knew that. The meaning 'compel obedience to a law' is more than 350 years old. 

6079_Smith_W

I know that words have multiple meanings, and that those meanings are contextual. Note the fifth definition - the one which applies specifically to governance. For that matter, note that there is an obsolete definition there, and that words do change meanings over time.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enforce

 

Definition of enforce

  1. transitive verb

  2. 1 :  to give force to :  strengthen

  3. 2 :  to urge with energy enforce arguments

  4. 3constrain, compel enforce obedience

  5. 4 obsolete :  to effect or gain by force

  6. 5 to carry out effectively enforce laws

So no, one does not necessarily need to use force, nor even the threat of force to enforce one's jurisdiction.  And I have already given you practical examples of how governments do that without the threat of force.

But more importantly, you spinning an unrelated comment into a smear about Mohawk people wanting to resort to the use of force and having double standards is complete nonsense.

(edit)

And if your comment is just about jurisdiction, and not about resorting to using force, then what are you talking about? No one here has said that settlers shouldn't have jurisdiction over settler land. The dispute here is over who that piece of land belongs to, and whether the federal government was justified in passing legislation which determined ownership.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Frustration mounts as land dispute continues in Oka, Que.

Frustration continues to mount in Kanesatake, Que., where residents of the Mohawk community are once again rallying to protect a stand of trees known as The Pines from encroaching development.

A protest was held on Tuesday near a housing project, Domaines des Collines d'Oka, about 60 kilometres northwest of Montreal. The development is on land which is part of the Kanesatake Mohawks' decades-old unresolved land claim.

The tension comes nearly three decades after an explosive and historic conflict erupted in the same area between the community, Sûreté du Québec and the Canadian Army.

Now, the Mohawks want Canada to intervene....

 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Okay, now you're going to have to define 'settler authority'. What the hell does that mean.

And you're absolutely wrong about the word 'enforcement'. The itself even contains 'force', so I have no idea where you get the idea it doesn't imply force. Every good leftist should know that at it's base, the state is military force. 

And by the way, it was the clear implication in the original comment about enforcement. So don't try and remove that implication.

Oh dear, with logic like this, what do you do with parkway and driveway?

The semantics in your arguments are truly irritating.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Injunctions, RCMP deployment “classic pacification”

While having so many police officers around may be a new experience for many in Labrador, the recent deployment of additional RCMP resources to Cartwright, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and other communities along the shipment route of transformers headed for Muskrat Falls is concerning, says a Ryerson University professor who has been following the Muskrat Falls conflict.

Shiri Pasternak, an assistant professor of criminology and author of the new book Grounded Authority: the Algonquins of Barriere Lake Against the State, says police are often sent to “pacify” Indigenous resistance to resource development projects.

RCMP are often the go-to resource when court injunctions do not work against Indigenous people who threaten corporate interests in attempting to defend their land and rights.

“You can look at the buildup of RCMP forces, I think, as a response to the failed legal tactic that’s been tried in order to clear Indigenous people from the land,” Pasternak told The Independent in a recent interview.

Pasternak said injunctions are often used in order to “clear the path for development,” that judges are “more and more willing to grant injunctions to corporations,” and that when corporations apply for injunctions provincial governments “always side with the corporation, and not with Indigenous people.”

quote:

A “frightening record of police brutality in Canada”

Blame for the criminalization of land and water defenders has been directed at politicians, the courts and the RCMP.

According to Pasternak, who has been watching the Muskrat Falls resistance from afar, none of these parties are absolved of responsibility for Indigenous people winding up in the court system.

“There’s enough blame to go around,” she said, explaining the repetition of Indigenous people resisting resource extraction projects that threaten their land, waters, and Indigenous rights, and the subsequent use by corporations and colonial governments of legal mechanisms to quash any resistance, followed by the deployment of police as a tool to pacify remaining resisters, is a pattern seen throughout Canada’s ongoing colonial history.

Pasternak cited the 1989 Innu protests against NATO low-level flying in Labrador, the 1990 Mohawk resistance to a golf course in Kahnesatake, the Secwepemc resistance to the Sun Peaks development in 2011, and the Mi’kmaq-led anti-fracking protests at Elsipogtog in 2013 as examples of land defense efforts that resulted in the criminalization of Indigenous people trying to protect themselves, their families and communities.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

No one here has said that settlers shouldn't have jurisdiction over settler land.

Here we have those settlers again. What, didn't feel like defining settler authority? What settlers are you talking about?

From Sean in Ottawa:

The semantics in your arguments are truly irritating.

Irritating they may be, but they're not wrong.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From 6079_Smith_W:

No one here has said that settlers shouldn't have jurisdiction over settler land.

Here we have those settlers again. What, didn't feel like defining settler authority? What settlers are you talking about?

From Sean in Ottawa:

The semantics in your arguments are truly irritating.

Irritating they may be, but they're not wrong.

They are wrong.

You take words out of their context, which provides well-understood meaning and then try to play a semantic gain by rolling the word back to a root denying any other meaning that has been attached through discussions over time. It is a form of vandalism of the body of a whole conversation.

When we are talking of semantics I mean you are playing this at the most base level of linguistics - inherent meaning as opposed to one informed by context and the history of a public discussion.

Perhaps you may choose to google the term "semantic change" this relates to the evolution of words and their meanings. You might also want to spend a little time looking at the concept of lexical semantics which very much speaks to the context as words are not mathematical values that in all contexts and from all roots to branches have the same meaning.

Your apporach to language is static and conservative where language does not work that way. Terms are not the sum of their words as in a mathematical formula but meanings derived by context. Over time, words that may have had a single meaning end up with multiple ones as understanding is more than adding up words.

I would not be shocked to learn that you know all this and are just tryng to play a side game in place of a real argument of substance on the issues.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

You take words out of their context

Pardon me, I put them in their context. In fact it is specifically their context that gives them the meaning they have. Now, if you think 'enforcement' has some other meaning than physical force, I suggest you walk across the border into the USA without stopping in at the USA CPB office. You will find out exactly what 'enforcement' means within the context of 'borders' (which is the context upon which I was commenting).

6079_Smith_W

Or if you don't want to fall for another lame attempt to beg the question, you could consider the many ways in which enforcement is simply (as stated in the dictionary definition) carrying out laws effectively.

For instance, the ones I mentioned already:

You don't pay the parking tickets, you don't get your car licensed.

You don't pay your debts,  no lawyer will sign the papers to sell your house because it has a lein on it.

Or you wind up with your paycheque garnisheed.

Or the many cases in which enforcement involves disputes between levels of government, and for some reason we don't have provinces  and the federal government going to war with each other to settle it.

No use of force - real or threatened -  in any of those examples, as with most cases of compliance with the law.

But again, Rev, if this is just your spin on normal jurisdiction, and not a smear against First Nations people allegedly resorting to violence, maybe you can clarify what you mean by answering the question I asked at #44. No one is challenging settler authority over settler land.

Pages