🚀 go-pugleaf

[ While the NATIVE-L list is not handling discussion, I do sometimes make
  exceptions to the general rule of excluding opinionated commentary,
  based on my own sense of what can contribute to a better understanding
  of an issue.  Francis Frank, who submits this article, has distinguished
  himself in the past as someone who knows about issues in British Columbia
  and who writes in a way that helps us to see a side of issues that is not
  presented in the urgent calls for assistance that are sometimes issued in
  that area by people who see themselves to be on the front lines of the
  battle.

  In relaying this article and in offering this preface, I do not mean to
  imply any endorsement of these views.  Rather I feel that it is important
  to understand that there are often many sides to a story and many ways to
  conduct a struggle.  --Gary (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us) ]


riwaasa@indiana.edu (RKI) writes:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:57:42 -0800
> From: Steve Kisby <skisby@web.net>
> To: sovernet-l@speakeasy.org
> Cc: casnp@io.org
> Subject: Statement by Bill Lightbown
>
> TS'PETEN DEFENCE COMMITTEE
> 174-1472 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, Salish Territory, V5L 3X9
> Phone: (604) 322-7934, Fax: (604) 323-0224
> Information: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/gustmain.html
>
> Press Release
> February 18, 1997
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> Judicial Conspiracy?
> The following questions must arise in the minds of most Canadians.
>
> 1.  Why has the judicial system in British Columbia made every effort to
> block Attorney Dr. Bruce Clark from presenting his legal argument in regards
> to the lack of legal jurisdiction of the Government of B.C., over unceded
> aboriginal territory in B.C.?

Amazing how issues can easily be slanted to serve one's purpose!  Granted,
Mr. Clark must be given the freedom to represent his clients provided he
first face up to the manner in which he conducted himself in the courtroom
while representing his clients.

Mr. Clark totally discredited himself and possibly hurt his clients more by
his actions in the courtroom that caused contempt charges to be filed.  He
further exasperated his client's cause by fleeing and not facing the
penalties right at the outset.  If he had done so, we wouldn't be going
through this now would we? He would have been in what he believes to be his
rightful place as representative for his clients.

> 2.  Why did the Government of Canada and the B.C. Government decide to send
> over 400 RCMP officers, and 8 Canadian Armed Forces armoured vehicles manned
> by Canadian soldiers, to surround the camp of the 14 spiritual Sundancers
> and 4 non-aboriginal supporters in the Gustafsen Lake Sundance camp and give
> orders to kill the occupiers in the camp?  (Information source: transcripts
> from the Gustafsen Lake Defenders Trial).

Absolutely correct here!  These tough questions must be answered and such
actions must not be tolerated.  Unfortunately, because of Mr. Clark's
actions and the media hype surrounding his arrest -- that has taken the
media's and other people's focus away from these serious issues.  The
authorities involved must be held accountable and answers must be provided.
The answers can only be filtered out by not having the distractions such as
Mr. Clark and the media hype surrounding his arrest.  It doesn't add
anything to finding out why BC and Canada made the terrible decisions they
did.

> 3.  Why are the RCMP, on orders from the government, so determined to
> intercept and stop Dr. Bruce Clark from attending and participating as the
> lawyer of choice of most of the defendants as their defence attorney?

Again, through the media this has become the story not the real issues of BC
and Canada being held accountable for the decisions over why the army was
called in and orders to kill were issued!  Those are the real issues that
must be given primary focus.

As previously stated, if Mr. Clark is as competent as his clients believe
then he of all people (given that he is a lawyer) must acknowledge that he
must be held accountable for his actions that brought on the contempt
charges.  Mr. Clark is doing more of a disservice to his clients by making
himself and his own plight with the law the issue instead of bringing
attention to the "bad" decisions made by BC and Canada.

> The RCMP smear and disinformation campaign, waged through the lies fed to
> the media, was intended to get public support to go into the camp and murder
> the occupants.

Once again, this is a primary example of what the real issues are and these
are issues that BC and Canada must be held accountable for.  We must focus
on these atrocities of injustice instead of making Mr. Clark and his plight
with the law the issue!

> If the RCMP, the judicial system, and the B.C. and Canadian Governments are
> allowed to get away with what I consider immoral and illegal tactics in
> dealing with the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, then no one in
> Canadian society is safe from those illegal tactics.

Here again is where the focus must be on not Mr. Clark.  Mr. Clark is an
agent of the justice system and he must conduct himself accordingly if he is
serious about representing the interests of his clients.  Instead of making
the issue Mr. Clark and his arrest, Mr. Clark can do justice to his clients
by bringing attention to these atrocities in a manner that makes both BC and
Canada accountable for the questionable tactics and decisions taken to end
the Gustafsen Lake dispute!

> Canadian citizens have the right to know the truth about these issues.  We
> demand a public inquiry and call on all Canadian citizens to support us in
> this demand.

Right on!  BC and Canadian citizens must have the "issues" put before them
and they must be the real issues.  Unfortunately, what the Canadian citizens
are watching play itself out is Mr. Clark becoming the issue and his plight
with the law being the focus of people's attention.  An example is when Mr.
Clark arrived in Vancouver, how much time did the media dedicate to the
tough issues about BC and Canada's tactics and decisions to end the dispute?
NONE!!!!!  What did the media focus on?  Mr. Clark and his plight with the
law!  Nothing said about the smear campaign tactics!  Nothing about why the
army had to be used!  WHY?