Friday, July 06, 2007

Shawn Brant Takes His Medicine

From CTV:

NAPANEE, Ont. -- The man who led aboriginal protests that snarled traffic on Canada's busiest highway and blocked a major rail line is in custody after turning himself in to Ontario Provincial Police on Thursday.

Mr. Brant's actions on the National Day of Protest were certainly controversial, not supported by Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Phil Fontaine, and possibly counter-productive. However, if the mark of a committed activist (as opposed to a mere opportunist) is that they accept the legal consequences of their actions, then Mr. Brant has surely done this, and deserves credit for so doing.

At least he didn't attempt to escape wearing a Burqa.


bigcitylib said...

Read what I said, pea brain. You want me to write things out phonetically?

Anonymous said...

Isn't the word "terrorist" a little extreme?

I just don't understand why he's getting so much attention - it's playing right into his plans.

Enough about this guy already!

canuckistanian said...

don't worry about crazoid anony, just one of kate's good friends in hatred from SDA. apparently, according to the batshit nutbars of SDA, this guy is a "terrorist" who "kidnapped" the people who were driving down the 401. the scariest part is, they truly believe the blockade was a mass-kidnapping. at least that was about the nicest thing said on her site (the rest was: "won't somebody murder these drunken indians already"; "if i were there i would run them down in my car") and alot worse. really scary hate speech...and they have the gall to call this guy a terrorist. from all his public statements he is far more civil and rational than the terrorists at SDA.

Anonymous said...

Look up the definition of terrorist yourself, pea brain, in the criminal code. And remember this guy blockaded a public road and claimed to be armed. Let somebody else not from an untouchable minority group try that to promote their political objectives and see what happens.

bigcitylib said...

Sounds like Randy Hillier.

Anonymous said...

83.01(1) Act of Terrorism:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

Anonymous said...

wait till the lawyers get his ass in the hot seat.

Time to break this media loving skank into little bitty $broke pieces

Canadian National is slapping another lawsuit on Mohawk protester Shawn Brant for blocking its main Toronto-to-Montreal rail line.

CN is suing for financial damages incurred when rail traffic was cancelled June 29, Hallman said.

The amount has not been specified, although CN has said that $103 million worth of freight is carried on the line during an average 24-hour period.

Couldn't happen to a nicer asshole.

Ti-Guy said...

Couldn't happen to a nicer asshole.

Keep talking, hate-bag. The law will certainly take into consideration the radicalising effect of hate speech you SDA freaks spew.

Anyway, good luck to CN in its attempt to string up a poverty-stricken Indian to recoup a fraction of its yearly profits. I'm sure it'll win the public relations war on this one.

Anonymous said...

This should get the pea brained up in an uproar.Here is what a former RCMP officer and police psychologist in British Columbia consulted by the OPP on Natives and native protests had to say:

....“This is Canada’s dirty little secret, how aboriginal people have been treated. I’ve told police before, ‘The best thing you can do is cross the line and stand over there with them."...

so get off the pot and grab a clue,terrorist pleeeeease

Mike said...

"Oh, don't tell me you ADMIRE this terrorist?"

Do you admire Lanark Landowner's Association President and Conservative Candidate for Lanark Randy Hillier?

Because as part of his "rural revolution" he did the same damn thing - snareled traffic on the 401, downtown Toronto and downtown Ottawa.

The. Same. Damn. Thing.

So you are either a hypocrite, a racist or both.

I'll bet both.

Anonymous said...

People should fully educate themselves on all the history of the lands and first nations people before they judge. Terrorism is flying a fucking plane into a building full of people, not camping out on a highway.
The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte own the land they were on and can do what we please with it under a law that is not CANADIAN. THEY ARE A SOVERIGN NATION! One that has a law that goes back alot longer that 140 years. I could go on and on but people will have their own opinion either way. To voice that opinion without fully knowing what you're talking about is pure ignorance.

Anonymous said...

I say we look at what is a real threat, and what are manufactured threats. Perhaps the history life of Mr. Brant should be looked at in detail perhaps contrasting actions of the U.S or even Canada in some areas of the world. In summarization...Red Power!

Red Dawn