To paraphrase what was said in comment to the article you linked, M. Bedard was not suggesting going onto a reserve and laying waste to the locals. He was speaking about ending a rebellious violent and illegal situation with force no less equal to what was being threatened by the occupiers.

I don't recall 150 dead at the hands of First Nations. Can you clarify?

Protesters/occupiers/thugs at Oka were threatening to use violence against our military/police/anyone who tried to remove them. These were not happy friendly flower children having a sit in in a political office or picketing the local KFC. I never said they DID such a thing, but they were well armed and threatened to do so.

I believe our reserved military and political tact at the time is what set the prescident for our ongoing problems in Caledon, Deseronto and other places. If we had taken a more Russian approach to things, we wouldn't be faced with blocaded highways and rail routes. This doesn't mean laying waste to the protesters en-masse, just leaving the option open to take the safety off if necessary.

That is why you are a fringer who sides with totalitarianism.

I also think that it is un-ethical and just plain wrong to allow anyone to bring a child to partake in a political protest. I would assume that makes me un-democratic and anti-freedom of expression :)

I do not believe expecting the police/military to uphold the laws of the land is being supportive of totalitarianism.

We have laws, we have people who's job it is to enforce the laws. When they do not or are not allowed to, we set a prescident for others to ignore the law. Seems pretty basic to me.

Your words: "...a more Russian approach to things..."

They are our allies now you know.

I could have said "London Police Force", MOSSAD or Mi5 I guess.

You are describing repeating a Chechnya against the Mohawk. That is the Russian approach.

The Russian approach is to not deliberate or barter with persons doing things that are illegal and that endanger others lives to make a political statement. If that is what is being painted as a "wrong way of handling hings", then I side with those that promote it. It is a simple way of preventing anarchy and a complete snubbing of the nose at our system of defence and justice.

People have a right to protest, a right to speak their mind, a right to stand up for what they believe in. However, our country was also formed on the simple belief that you can do what you want so long as it does not negatively affect others. When you do, it is the job of the nation to stop you. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Furthermore, if discussing, planning or even postulating the taking up of arms against someone and thereby planting fear in the hearts of the innocent or even those in positions of enforcing the law falls under the broad modern definition of "terrorism", then actually brandishing arms in public and vocally threatening to harm others for political points certainly does.

Bearing in mind the source of the following is wikipedia, I think it can be questioned as to who was breaking the law of the land, the Mohawks or the Seminary that absconded with their lands:

"The crisis developed from a dispute between the town of Oka and the Mohawk community of Kanesatake.The Mohawk nation had been pursuing a land claim which included a burial ground and a sacred grove of pine trees near Kanesatake. This brought them into conflict with the town of Oka, which was developing plans to expand a golf course onto the land.

In 1717, the governor of New France granted the lands encompassing the cemetery and the pines to a Catholic seminary. The Mohawk claim that this grant was intended for the seminary to hold the land in trust for the Mohawk nation and that the Church expanded this agreement to grant themselves sole ownership rights. In 1868, one year after Confederation, the chief of the Oka Mohawk people, Joseph Onasakenrat, wrote a letter to the Church condemning them for illegally holding the land and demanding its return. The petition produced no results for the Mohawks and in 1869 Onasakenrat moved on the seminary with a small armed force, giving the missionaries eight days to hand over the land. This stand-off was ended with force by local authorities. In 1936, the seminary sold the remaining territory and vacated the area under protest by the local Mohawk community.

In 1961, a nine-hole golf course, le Club de golf d'Oka, was built on a portion of the land, and the Mohawk launched a legal protest against its construction. By the time the case was heard, much of the land had already been cleared and construction had begun on a parking lot and golf greens adjacent to the Mohawk cemetery.

In 1977, the band filed an official land claim with the federal Office of Native Claims regarding the land. The claim was accepted for filing, and funds were provided for additional research of the claim. Nine years later, the claim was finally rejected for failing to meet key criteria."

I have no issues at all that the Mohawks are probably correct that the land should be theirs, much like many other parcels of land in Canada. I take issue with occupation of lands by armed people making threats and terrorizing others.

If the system doesn't work in your favour, feel free to press the government, go to court, heck even join a political party and get elected, changing from within. Its the 21st century.

Yet you defend someone who proposed armed attack.

I defend someone's right to state that they were frustrated that the military and police were not given the go ahead to nip the insurection in the bud. Regardless of their possible correctness, once they show up with an assault rifle, the gloves should come off.

Because showing a gun deserves 50, 100 or 150 dead even if there is a good case that the guy with the gun is right. That sure is the Russian approach, I'll give you that.

Bringing a group of thugs, armed with illegal weaponry, supplied by a criminal organization, to an otherwise valid protest, who make threats of violence against police, the military and others, removes from the picture any validity of the protest. It doesn't matter if it is Native people, skinheads, environmentalists or angry farmers.

If my grandfather borrowed a tractor from your grandfather, and you began legal procedings to get it back because I refuted your story, good for you. You have every right to do so. To plunk yourself down on the tractor (on public land) and protest, well within your rights. You do so with a shotgun and threaten to shoot people, well, the business of who's tractor it is goes away for a while and if the police tazer you or knock you out with rubber bullets, or worse, shoot you because you start pointing said weapon, well, its your own fault.

Yawn.

...and seeing as he is gone even your party leadership yawns.

I am done arguing with you. :P

and two pair of pants

:p
:B

You were done far further up.

Back to the polls - I really don't believe these "battleground" riding polls; in every case, the media is reporting numbers of individual provinces or regions, which suggests small sample sizes, and with such irregular strata, I expect a high degree of non-sampling error. The way polling is reported is a complete sham anyway - if you have a party appear to *double* its support, that screams sample bias or some other artifact of the sampling method. The true margins of error are always going to be larger than what they report.

That is what I think, Josh. Plus the polls are all too divergent. I think the respondents to pollsters are jerking the pollsters chains.