Occupy Ottawa Legal Team
Hey, I was wondering if you know how to go about getting access to legal decisions that are not indexed via Canlii... I assume there is a more comprehensive database out there, likely requiring academic privileges to access - theoretically I have the Carleton alum access to various things, but have no idea whether that would provide access to law material (and have let all registration seriously lapse). Alternately, do you know if there is a publicly accessible law library in Ottawa?
Jessica Amber Murray
i never had to go beyond the canlii (or the other one), but i know there are published versions of every single case in these large serial collections. they publish them in volumes. i'd be very surprised if you couldn't find the information at the physical library for either carleton or ottawa - or at least for the bigger courts. which court are you looking for, specifically?
Occupy Ottawa Legal Team
The OLRB, and some decisions going back to about '75.
Jessica Amber Murray
did you check here? http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlrb/
Occupy Ottawa Legal Team
Yes - their full coverage starts in 2000.
Jessica Amber Murray
i'd try ottawa before carleton, they do have a law library, and maybe they could get somebody from here to fax something... http://www.owtlibrary.on.ca/english/findDocs.htm#specificolrbdecs
Jessica Amber Murray
the olb site sends people there...
Occupy Ottawa Legal Team
excellent - that I hadn't seen before.
Jessica Amber Murray
it seems like the journal is at carleton, and there's a lexis link online to hit a possible online entry: http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca/search/a?searchtype=t&searcharg=O.L.R.B.+Rep+&searchscope=0&SORT=D
Occupy Ottawa Legal Team
oh, that might work - the decisions I am looking for are widely cited. I essentially have most of the decisions pieced together from other decisions that cite them - but ideally we need the original document.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
mom
OMG!... J...Are you alright? Where does this threatening woman live? It scared me to read it!
Jessica Amber Murray
i don't know, it was just on an event page.
mom
Well, she sounds NUTS!
Jessica Amber Murray
she seemed a little off, yeah.
mom
Maybe just be careful K.
Jessica Amber Murray
k
mom
She appears to be from District of Katepwa...Wherever that it....Think, I got the spelling right..
Jessica Amber Murray
i'm not interested in pursuing the issue.
i posted it to act as a disincentive to any action. i think that's enough.
mom
K
OMG!... J...Are you alright? Where does this threatening woman live? It scared me to read it!
Jessica Amber Murray
i don't know, it was just on an event page.
mom
Well, she sounds NUTS!
Jessica Amber Murray
she seemed a little off, yeah.
mom
Maybe just be careful K.
Jessica Amber Murray
k
mom
She appears to be from District of Katepwa...Wherever that it....Think, I got the spelling right..
Jessica Amber Murray
i'm not interested in pursuing the issue.
i posted it to act as a disincentive to any action. i think that's enough.
mom
K
taking note of a death threat
Jessica Amber Murray
i should note that this section of the thread was deleted by the moderator of the event page. nice to see where their priorities are.
i still have the thread in memory; i'm going to post it here for context. the issue is one of substance, i think. i've seen this jump up repeatedly. i could cite some people that agree with me, but why bother for the purposes of posting this...
---
Jessica Amber Murray
i legitimately just wanted to correct a point that i actually assumed was coming from a white liberal. after all, it's a white liberal perspective! but, the greater context here is something that i think some awareness needs to be raised regarding. this isn't the first time i've tried to discuss decolonization with an indigenous person, only to have them repeat a whitewashed colonial history back to me, and then twist the accusation of colonialism at me. it might not be my place to address strategies to dealing with this. i'd agree in a respect that this is sort of paternalistic. i mean, what do you say about the idea of white people teaching decolonization to indigenous people? it turns decolonization into...the universe just collapsed in a set of contradictions.... i think i can safely analyze the situation, though. i think there's a complex psychological aspect, but i'm going to avoid that. i think there's also an aspect of entrenched hierarchy. something that didn't come up in that discussion was that one of the tactics that the british used was bribing people at the top of the indigenous hierarchy to align with their aims, often explicitly against the interests of their own people. the british were ridiculous assholes in this respect. it worked, more often than not. and, it was a part of the colonization process. so, you'd end up with these wealthy indigenous leaders running their tribes like personal fiefdoms, in exchange for political alliances. sometimes it came with religious conversion. there were indigenous groups in the united states that owned black slaves that were given to them in exchange for whatever. the british did this all over the world, it was a key tactic. i'm left to conclude that what we're seeing here is a legacy of that tactic, on some level, that the colonization process - as it went through indigenous leaders that willingly engaged in exchange for personal gain - has left such an imprint that it's been intersected into their own histories. a certain culture of submission may be complicating that. for the precise issue at hand, at the end of the day, if you want to know what the british were thinking then you ask the british. if you want to know what whatever indigenous group was thinking, you ask that group. you don't ask the british what the indigenous people were thinking. and you don't ask the indigenous groups what the british were thinking.
Kardinal ZG
Hahaha i like how her idea of being a native woman is basically the injun from the movies
Jessica Amber Murray
i'm also going to post this. my understanding of the subject came from an essay on the indian act that i wrote last year, and mostly involved sorting through *older* histories written by the canadian government. now, that might seem backwards. we want the newest sources, right? well, no. not with history. especially when there's been a big change in social attitudes. there's a certain level of candidness that people working for the canadian government had in the period before wwII, and especially before pearson. they weren't concerned about not being racist. so, when a policy was openly racist, they would explain it in openly racist terms. in fact, more recent histories are less reliable in understanding what the government was actually thinking because they've been through all kinds of revisions to try and make the state seem less blatantly racist, because most people don't want to support a systemically racist state. i wanted to find an indigenous source that's a little bit more detailed than the average internet article. the one i posted in the initial thread was a little skimpy. i'm not sure if traci read it; while it was skimpy, it cited some texts. the value of the article was in the citations, rather than the article itself. where it was published wasn't particularly relevant. this is a bit better, and apparently sources from warriorpublications (although i couldn't locate it there). just to add to it, though.... i did bring up the concept of agency. i think this history is a little light on it. there's no question that these treaties were signed largely out of fear of encroaching american genocidal maniacs. there was an expectation of protection in return for the land. but, there's two things you have to keep in mind. first, it was a horrific choice. the choice was between being pushed into a reserve (and that's what 'protection' meant) and being slaughtered by lunatic americans. that's a hobson's choice, really. it's also what i was talking about with the psychological aspect. it's pride. but, there's every indication that the indigenous signatories were entirely aware of the situation they were in, and picked the best of a lot of bad options. that doesn't negate the reality that the rcmp were acting with a very heavy and very exploitative hand - it was just the least worst way of getting fucked over. the second was that the intentions of the police were not altruistic. they were there to clear the way for settlers, and to uphold corporate interests. like all cops. we can talk about whether the british were liars. there's no doubt they were, but only to an extent - protection meant reserves, and that was clear in the treaties. the truth is that the dishonesty of the british was understood by both sides. decolonization means understanding all of this.
http://copwatchvancouver.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/rcmp-history-of-colonialism-state-violence/
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4664/
removed poster
(deleted post about how natives are lazy)
deathtokoolas
did it cross your mind that your obsession with a monetized economy is a part of the problem? on the level of polluting the water? on the level of enforcing an outside system? on the level of that enforcement requiring a response that may require force - yes, that horrific word 'violence' that the media has turned into a brain-suspending trigger?
you show up in a foreign land, you force your economy on them, then you blame them for not cooperating. no. take responsibility for your own violence.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
lol. this guy doesn't know the difference between work and wage slavery.
what a moron.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
any respectable theory of law has a democratic mechanism of some sort, and a moral imperative to fight against unjust laws that were enforced without consultation. pick your favourite legal philosopher, from aquinas to locke to fucking gandhi. if you can strip away any racism they may have had, none of them would have accepted the colonial rule of law due to it’s totalitarian, undemocratic nature.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
in most cases they did just "take the land anyways". a third of canada was declared crown land in 1763. no land treaties, there. a third is up north or very far to the west. some treaties so far, some being worked on. the rest was in the prairies, and this is the only area where there were really any land treaties. the level of coercion and dishonesty on the british side was staggering - take the crumbs we offer you, or starve and/or be slaughtered by the americans.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i don't think you remotely understood what i typed. try again.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
you're a moron. the violence originates with the state's exploitation. the reaction you're seeing is only violent on a surface level. what the government does to them on a daily basis - with your worthless fucking 'taxpayer dollars' - is incomparably more violent.
every action has a reaction. every oppression has a resistance. violence is the expected reaction to imperialism. it is the only reaction. expect it, it's justice.
your ancestors would have agreed with me; you're nothing like them.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
fracking works by flushing chemicals into rocks. those chemicals then find their way into the water table. water treatment plants are of limited value.
this is a list of some of the chemicals that are used:
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
you can google search them to learn that many are carcinogenic.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
and under what supposition does the state claim the right to control the natives? the answer is under the decree of long dead monarchs. it's interesting. canadians are pretty uniformly opposed to interference from britain, and yet their sole source of claim to control over indigenous people, resources and land is a unilateral declaration by that monarch. we speak so highly of democracy and human rights, yet show no interest in actually following through with that rhetoric.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
generally, english law respects the right to use force to evict uninvited people from your property. if somebody breaks into your house, you have the right to use force against them. why wouldn't you extend that right to indigenous people?
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
you know, for all the rhetoric you hear about values from conservatives, it's amazing how morally bankrupt they are. you sound like a fucking stalinist.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i *do* 'whine' about that. i don't like the foreign slave labour used to produce the goods, either. but, the real world doesn't exist in black and white, and grown-ups understand that market logic is not going to change the world.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
under their natural right to self-determination? due to the reality that (in the area being discussed) they've never agreed to be governed? you could take a lot of approaches to this. social contract theory. natural rights. democratic self-determinacy. even basic christian decency. your imperial logic is rooted in a sort of nihilism that claims that those with the most guns have the right to make the laws.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
no, this is very flawed market logic. changes in production don't occur as a result of consumer pressure. consumers make choices in a controlled context, which includes monetary pressure driven by costing issues. there needs to be union movements in asia to fight for better conditions. that's something that's out of my control, as a consumer across the world. there are lifestyle changes that i can make, but they have very minimal consequences. real change has to come through direct action.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
regarding energy, we can talk about divestment, investment in better sources, etc. but those actions need to follow from complex pressures. some of it might be in the form of laws, ideally, but that's hard to carry through with in a political system that is controlled by lobbyists. any way you look at it, those complex pressures are ultimately a political issue, and they have to be driven by some kind of activism.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
ugh.
the "treaty" in this area stems from an agreement reached in 1760 at the conclusion of the seven years war between france and england. it discusses trade. it does not discuss land ownership.
the british claim to "crown ownership" of the land is from a declaration in 1763 by the crazy british king that is based on the flawed logic that defeat of the french implied ownership of the land that they had exclusive trade agreements with.
the french did not sign land treaties, either.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
if i were to personally refrain from buying certain goods (and, fwiw, i tend to purchase goods second-hand, that's about the best any of us could realistically do), that would not prevent others from doing so. my carbon footprint is already very small. meaningful changes in production could either come from the top (through investment/divestment strategies, or advances in technology) or through workers seizing the means of production and converting factories. both require political activism.
however, suppose i were to convince others to boycott. the economy would grind to a halt. that would both lead to large layoffs and flood the market with goods, which would lead to a decrease in prices. any competition that exists with better productive processes would not be able to compete with the collapsed prices. the boycott would collapse. market theory works *against* changes in production.
something systemic has to happen, at a higher level of abstraction. activism is a step, not an end.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
buying locally can help in certain ways, but it's complicated by a lot of the factors of production. there are large classes of goods that are not produced locally at all. the key thing to point out is that you or i buying locally does not eliminate the reality that offshore production is cheaper/more profitable. only unions can fight that.
also, we don't all have the financial means required to get ourselves off the grid. one way or the other, we need to work together to convert to renewables.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
yeah. that's a nice idea. but, so long as we're discussing colonialism, we should not forget that hoarding resources is a type of exploitation and that trade is a better option than war. producing some things locally may be more sustainable, but that's not true about everything. if worker conditions were more comparable, and transportation were less harmful, ricardo would have a very good argument.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
yeah, i wouldn't consider wood heating to be sustainable. in the long run, it's arguably worse.
going off grid, to me, means solar panels, primarily. and that's bloody expensive. let alone impractical for renters.
i have more hope in *converting* the grid. but a diversity of tactics can be valuable.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i find their cuteness infuriating.
they're also, actually, quite vicious. if their metabolism wasn't so slow, they'd be vicious predators.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
there were things i wanted to do today....
nobody is arguing against production. you might only see it that way in your black-or-white reality of "illegal v legal", "violence v non-violence", "industry v nature", etc. but, it's a very simplistic way to analyze things.
what people are arguing for is *sustainable* production using renewable energy sources, recycling and, just, generally, *science*.
the irony is that you're the one that is arguing against science and progress.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i'd generally argue that liberals are worse than conservatives because they can get away with more without people reacting. same goes for democrats.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
harper didn't create that system, but it *is* a relic of colonialism, and his proposed solutions (like property rights on reserve) are entirely deaf to aboriginal culture. a better idea lies in the nisgaa agreement.
one of the tactics that the british used was to buy off aboriginal leadership. the entire system of chiefs, the assembly of first nations, etc is a colonial construction that was created. to the extent that you're half right, it is canada's fault.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
...but the one and only thing i'm likely to agree with you about is that a real solution to aboriginal poverty can only come from aboriginal people rising up and tearing down the hierarchy that was put in place to govern them. if that ever happens, don't be surprised to see the state come down and intervene on behalf of the system they created.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
one of the intriguing things about racists is their lack of historical context. there's a lot of ways to approach this. i'm not sure if this guy sounds more like a viking, a nazi or a roman. certainly, it's a mindset that was foreign to british imperialism, which was rooted in a sort of benevolent racism, not some kind of master morality.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
let me ask you this: would you draw the same conclusions regarding the turkish invasions of eastern europe? that the asiatic turks were superior to the white europeans? that arabs were superior to romans? that mongols were superior to russians?
those primitive, warring tribes in europe received a few scares over the years. but, again, racists tend to lack context.
(deleted post about how natives are lazy)
deathtokoolas
did it cross your mind that your obsession with a monetized economy is a part of the problem? on the level of polluting the water? on the level of enforcing an outside system? on the level of that enforcement requiring a response that may require force - yes, that horrific word 'violence' that the media has turned into a brain-suspending trigger?
you show up in a foreign land, you force your economy on them, then you blame them for not cooperating. no. take responsibility for your own violence.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
lol. this guy doesn't know the difference between work and wage slavery.
what a moron.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
any respectable theory of law has a democratic mechanism of some sort, and a moral imperative to fight against unjust laws that were enforced without consultation. pick your favourite legal philosopher, from aquinas to locke to fucking gandhi. if you can strip away any racism they may have had, none of them would have accepted the colonial rule of law due to it’s totalitarian, undemocratic nature.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
in most cases they did just "take the land anyways". a third of canada was declared crown land in 1763. no land treaties, there. a third is up north or very far to the west. some treaties so far, some being worked on. the rest was in the prairies, and this is the only area where there were really any land treaties. the level of coercion and dishonesty on the british side was staggering - take the crumbs we offer you, or starve and/or be slaughtered by the americans.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i don't think you remotely understood what i typed. try again.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
you're a moron. the violence originates with the state's exploitation. the reaction you're seeing is only violent on a surface level. what the government does to them on a daily basis - with your worthless fucking 'taxpayer dollars' - is incomparably more violent.
every action has a reaction. every oppression has a resistance. violence is the expected reaction to imperialism. it is the only reaction. expect it, it's justice.
your ancestors would have agreed with me; you're nothing like them.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
fracking works by flushing chemicals into rocks. those chemicals then find their way into the water table. water treatment plants are of limited value.
this is a list of some of the chemicals that are used:
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
you can google search them to learn that many are carcinogenic.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
and under what supposition does the state claim the right to control the natives? the answer is under the decree of long dead monarchs. it's interesting. canadians are pretty uniformly opposed to interference from britain, and yet their sole source of claim to control over indigenous people, resources and land is a unilateral declaration by that monarch. we speak so highly of democracy and human rights, yet show no interest in actually following through with that rhetoric.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
generally, english law respects the right to use force to evict uninvited people from your property. if somebody breaks into your house, you have the right to use force against them. why wouldn't you extend that right to indigenous people?
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
you know, for all the rhetoric you hear about values from conservatives, it's amazing how morally bankrupt they are. you sound like a fucking stalinist.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i *do* 'whine' about that. i don't like the foreign slave labour used to produce the goods, either. but, the real world doesn't exist in black and white, and grown-ups understand that market logic is not going to change the world.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
under their natural right to self-determination? due to the reality that (in the area being discussed) they've never agreed to be governed? you could take a lot of approaches to this. social contract theory. natural rights. democratic self-determinacy. even basic christian decency. your imperial logic is rooted in a sort of nihilism that claims that those with the most guns have the right to make the laws.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
no, this is very flawed market logic. changes in production don't occur as a result of consumer pressure. consumers make choices in a controlled context, which includes monetary pressure driven by costing issues. there needs to be union movements in asia to fight for better conditions. that's something that's out of my control, as a consumer across the world. there are lifestyle changes that i can make, but they have very minimal consequences. real change has to come through direct action.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
regarding energy, we can talk about divestment, investment in better sources, etc. but those actions need to follow from complex pressures. some of it might be in the form of laws, ideally, but that's hard to carry through with in a political system that is controlled by lobbyists. any way you look at it, those complex pressures are ultimately a political issue, and they have to be driven by some kind of activism.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
ugh.
the "treaty" in this area stems from an agreement reached in 1760 at the conclusion of the seven years war between france and england. it discusses trade. it does not discuss land ownership.
the british claim to "crown ownership" of the land is from a declaration in 1763 by the crazy british king that is based on the flawed logic that defeat of the french implied ownership of the land that they had exclusive trade agreements with.
the french did not sign land treaties, either.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
if i were to personally refrain from buying certain goods (and, fwiw, i tend to purchase goods second-hand, that's about the best any of us could realistically do), that would not prevent others from doing so. my carbon footprint is already very small. meaningful changes in production could either come from the top (through investment/divestment strategies, or advances in technology) or through workers seizing the means of production and converting factories. both require political activism.
however, suppose i were to convince others to boycott. the economy would grind to a halt. that would both lead to large layoffs and flood the market with goods, which would lead to a decrease in prices. any competition that exists with better productive processes would not be able to compete with the collapsed prices. the boycott would collapse. market theory works *against* changes in production.
something systemic has to happen, at a higher level of abstraction. activism is a step, not an end.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
buying locally can help in certain ways, but it's complicated by a lot of the factors of production. there are large classes of goods that are not produced locally at all. the key thing to point out is that you or i buying locally does not eliminate the reality that offshore production is cheaper/more profitable. only unions can fight that.
also, we don't all have the financial means required to get ourselves off the grid. one way or the other, we need to work together to convert to renewables.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
yeah. that's a nice idea. but, so long as we're discussing colonialism, we should not forget that hoarding resources is a type of exploitation and that trade is a better option than war. producing some things locally may be more sustainable, but that's not true about everything. if worker conditions were more comparable, and transportation were less harmful, ricardo would have a very good argument.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
yeah, i wouldn't consider wood heating to be sustainable. in the long run, it's arguably worse.
going off grid, to me, means solar panels, primarily. and that's bloody expensive. let alone impractical for renters.
i have more hope in *converting* the grid. but a diversity of tactics can be valuable.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i find their cuteness infuriating.
they're also, actually, quite vicious. if their metabolism wasn't so slow, they'd be vicious predators.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
there were things i wanted to do today....
nobody is arguing against production. you might only see it that way in your black-or-white reality of "illegal v legal", "violence v non-violence", "industry v nature", etc. but, it's a very simplistic way to analyze things.
what people are arguing for is *sustainable* production using renewable energy sources, recycling and, just, generally, *science*.
the irony is that you're the one that is arguing against science and progress.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i'd generally argue that liberals are worse than conservatives because they can get away with more without people reacting. same goes for democrats.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
harper didn't create that system, but it *is* a relic of colonialism, and his proposed solutions (like property rights on reserve) are entirely deaf to aboriginal culture. a better idea lies in the nisgaa agreement.
one of the tactics that the british used was to buy off aboriginal leadership. the entire system of chiefs, the assembly of first nations, etc is a colonial construction that was created. to the extent that you're half right, it is canada's fault.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
...but the one and only thing i'm likely to agree with you about is that a real solution to aboriginal poverty can only come from aboriginal people rising up and tearing down the hierarchy that was put in place to govern them. if that ever happens, don't be surprised to see the state come down and intervene on behalf of the system they created.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
one of the intriguing things about racists is their lack of historical context. there's a lot of ways to approach this. i'm not sure if this guy sounds more like a viking, a nazi or a roman. certainly, it's a mindset that was foreign to british imperialism, which was rooted in a sort of benevolent racism, not some kind of master morality.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
let me ask you this: would you draw the same conclusions regarding the turkish invasions of eastern europe? that the asiatic turks were superior to the white europeans? that arabs were superior to romans? that mongols were superior to russians?
those primitive, warring tribes in europe received a few scares over the years. but, again, racists tend to lack context.
this goes into quite a bit of depth about the nwmp's role as a colonial agent.
http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/1993/4109/1/Ennab_Fadi.pdf
the tone in this essay sucks. he goes through a long explanation of post-colonial theory, only to come out sounding like a racist in his language. transparently. like, he didn't need to make those comments; why he did, is not easy to understand, given the lengthy exposition into post-colonial theory. disappointing, given that the author is palestinian.
http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/1993/4109/1/Ennab_Fadi.pdf
the tone in this essay sucks. he goes through a long explanation of post-colonial theory, only to come out sounding like a racist in his language. transparently. like, he didn't need to make those comments; why he did, is not easy to understand, given the lengthy exposition into post-colonial theory. disappointing, given that the author is palestinian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)