“This land is your land, This land is my land . . . ” That hand-clapping and toe-tapping song of joy is never far from the lips of Canadian school children.
Just ask their parents who have hands pressed firmly to ears. Despite this saccharine ode to unity, the question of just whose land this really is has become a flashpoint of controversy that, in one case, has devolved into a mockery of the social contract between the individual and the state.
The ongoing land dispute in Caledonia, Ontario between the Six-Nations and a developer has been allowed to fester since 2006. It has resulted in accusations of a “two-tiered” justice system being practiced by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) where, it is alleged, a very different kind of law enforcement is observed and unleashed depending on whether one is native or non-native.
Two-tiered justice system
The very notion of a two-tiered justice system is indefensible under any imaginable condition in a free and democratic society. Enforcement of the law must be practiced without passion, prejudice and, most importantly, without politics or the entire legitimacy of a society, its institutions and its government are called into question.
To allow for even the appearance of a two-tiered justice system to take root does nothing but embolden those who ignore the law, imbue them with a false sense of righteousness and undermine what should be the prime motivation – that of the restoration of peace, security and order for the benefit of all. To make security meaningful both on a collective and individual basis, it demands such restoration at the earliest possible moment following its breach.
Local residents near the disputed land, weary of being forced to traverse barricades, suffer intimidation both inside and outside their homes and, in some cases, observe illegal curfews and display “native-passports” at sham checkpoints, have accused the OPP – and, by proxy, the Ontario government – of abandoning them to a lawless horde.
Property values have plummeted and when the local citizenry attempts to demonstrate against the injustice and lack of action on the part of those sworn to uphold the law, they find themselves prevented from exercising their fundamental rights to free speech.
The issue raised by this debacle is not the legitimacy of land claims made by Aboriginals. The outrage felt should be towards the violation of even the most basic rights of citizenship when those sworn to uphold the law choose instead to turn a blind eye for reasons of politics or policy. Their sacred and non-negotiable duty is one of protection, enforcement and apprehension when persons or property are threatened.
Discretion and proportionality should come into play at the next step during the administration of justice. It is inside a court of law where mitigating factors can be examined and grievances aired if warranted.
To leave a population to fend for itself or, worse, prevent them from defending their basic rights to security by applying the law of the land exclusively to them, leads to communities, cities and even entire countries being torn apart at the seams. The restoration of order must not depend upon the vagaries of political, personal or cultural beliefs.
Those must rank behind the basic premise that people of different opinions and backgrounds live together in a social structure dependent for its very survival on the observance and guarantee of the rule of law. That basic foundation to civilized society is weakened at our peril. Open revolt has never and can never be tolerated without threatening to rip the already fragile fabric of civility that history reminds us can tear at any moment.
How far can a government go given the proper motivation? In June, 1963, US President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard Troops in Alabama to escort two single black students past barricades erected by Governor George Wallace in defiance of an order to desegregate the University of Alabama. Make no mistake, whether it be Canada or the United States, the issue of race is never far from the surface.
Crisis paralysis
The term “crisis paralysis” has been used by the noted political scientist Abraham Miller to describe an impotence and reluctance on the part of law enforcement to take steps to restore and ensure the public order in the face of fears of being accused of racist action against an aggrieved minority. Such was the case during the Los Angeles riots of 1992 where chaos and violence raged for 72 hours. Then police chief Daryl Gates has blamed police inaction at the beginning for the eventual spread of the lawlessness.
One of the leading sociologists of the 20th Century, Morris Janowitz – after analyzing the race riots of the 1960's – came to the conclusion that swift decisive action by law enforcement, despite the ugliness of this in a culture where public opinion is often influenced by ivory tower rhetoric, actually goes further to preserving the peace than standing back and doing nothing.
How ironic it is that, in the wake of a natural disaster, one of the first and overriding goals is to restore order and ensure security. All the tools of government are marshaled and mobilized in swift response to ensure that this cornerstone of civilization is not allowed to crumble. Yet, when faced with riots, occupations or general insurrection, some would have those same forces left on the sidelines while the man-made calamity is allowed to run its course.
Now, that is the real disaster.
