And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.I.S.I.S.) writes:
(continued)
SISIS: So it is obvious now, or at least conceded in media, that treaties
are necessary in British Columbia. They are pursuing treaties, in illegal
forms, I might add, but, at the same time they misrepresent the issues, and
keep the real issues under cover of this whole fraudulent system they have
created.
BC: Yes, I think that's all part of the fraud that's going on. The reason
treaties are juristically necessary is, because according to international
and constitutional law, there is racial and cultural segregation. And
according to international and constitutional law the way in which newcomer
society acquires the right to go into the new area is by way of a treaty.
Well, that scenario has been superceded by the event: the newcomers are in
there already, so to talk of making a treaty is simply out of keeping with
the factual reality. But it's more obscenely out of keeping in the sense
that in the 19th century, the Indian Act of Canada was amended essentially
to co-opt a portion of Indian society to make it the agents in the genocide
of the native people. So, for example, the Indian Act was amended in 1884
to make illegal the life chief, or hereditary system of the Indians, and to
put in its place a system of puppet government, that is, the Indian Act
system; and native society was bifurcated into these two solitudes.
Those, in my view, who remained culturally "Indian Indians," became
the victims of the genocide that was perpetrated by the Indian puppet
governments. And this was carried on for in excess of 100 years. What you
have is a huge Indian governmental organization bureaucracy who are the
heirs of the Indians who committed genocide against their own people. And
the irony of this situation is that this is who the treaties are being made
with, and the obscenity of it is that in the treaty process, these
particular Indians, the ones with the blood of their brothers and sisters
on their hands, are the ones being compensated.
SISIS: Good old British Columbia....
BC: Essentially, what you have there is a really grotesque alliance between
the legal establishment and the native bureaucracy. Indian culture, in its
most attractive sense is the ideology of sharing and respect. That is a
gift that the spirits of the old-style Indians can give to their
generations unborn, but more so to all of humankind. But it is profoundly
false to suggest that these Indian organizations, and governments in
Canada, who are so handsomely funded by the federal government, in any
sense represent the native values of sharing and respect. Those governments
and organizations are no less committed to the institutions of private
property and economics, the infinite satisfying of unlimited human wants.
So the whole thing, the whole situation of treaty making is an
obscene game, the major players of which are a corrupt legal establishment
and an equally corrupt native establishment. In this game the average
Canadian, the average Indian, and newcomer Canadian equally, are simply
left out. They don't really know what's going on.
SISIS: So in terms of the west, and in any place that hasn't been treatied,
jurisdiction still lies with the indigenous people?
BC: Yes.
SISIS: So, if you acknowledge that jurisdiction still lies with the native
people, and there's this corrupt leadership that controls much of their
resources and territories, then how is it possible to get this mess cleaned
up?
BC: Well, that is one of the reasons that I have been propounding the
concept of justice as the application of truth to affairs. In my view,
there is no prospect of getting the mess cleaned up unless we start with
the first premise that the whole truth has to come out. And once the whole
truth does come out, not just the facts of history, but the whole truth
about the law, once it does come out, then we are in a position to discuss
reforming the law.
But we can't realistically reform the law until we have the truth
on the table about what the law is. So, the first stage is to accept the
principle of justice as the application of truth to affairs. The second
stage is to put on the table what the law actually is. The third stage is
then to discuss reform of the law. But in that discussion of reform of the
law, it's important that all Canadians, I think, participate. That is,
right now, that discussion is being carried on by interested parties. It is
essentially a dialogue between a corrupt legal establishment and a corrupt
native establishment. And it is in the equal interest of both of those
establishments to suppress and conceal the truth.
SISIS: So what you are basically presenting is a scenario where non-corrupt
Indian people and non-corrupt Canadian people have to sit down and come up
with viable alternatives to the status quo.
BC: That's right.
SISIS: There are so many things to cut through. Where do you think, I mean,
you say the first thing that has to happen is for the truth to come out?
BC: No, no, the first that has to happen before the truth can come out is
that this society has to address its value system and realize that the
paramount value is that justice is the application of truth to affairs. For
example, the present constitution of Canada, as amended in 1982, declares
that Canada, as a country, is premised upon the principle of the supremacy
of God and the rule of law. Now, one can equate the concept of supremacy of
God with the concept the of the rule of law in the sense that most concepts
of god and gods in the world, basically are based on respect and sharing. I
think that's essentially what the rule of law, the law that is worthy of
the name is: the application of those fundamental principles to human
affairs. So, if you start with that, you know, a discussion and agreement
on your opening premise - and your opening premise is a society based on
the rule of law - then I would equate that with a society in which justice
as the application of truth to affairs is the paramount value. Then you can
move on to say, OK, how do we conduct our affairs consistent with that
value, and then we get to the stage you are talking about - about getting
the truth on the table. But you don't get to the stage of getting the truth
onto the table until you've got a premise that says there is a value in
getting the truth on the table, in principle.
SISIS: I agree, and I think that most people, or most Canadians would also
agree with that premise.
BC: Well, that's interesting, because that is all I have ever been saying.
For the past ten years, that has been the point of my existence. And yet,
part of the semiotic field in Canada right now, if you put the two words
Bruce Clark out there, the reaction you get is a form of rejection
reaction: the organism simply rejects it. It's a demonization thing. People
may agree with that in principle, but how do you get that principle to the
people? I have tried, and in the course of trying, have been demonized.
That is, what I am saying is, that there is sort of an unholy
conspiracy between the legal establishment and the native bureaucracy to
get away with lining their own pockets on the basis of a fraud. And the way
to break through the fraud is by this principle that justice is the
application of truth to affairs. Everybody can see it, but if you start
trying to apply it in practice, as I have done, then you're neutralized.
SISIS: So what do you think would kind of wake Canadians up to this reality?
BC: Well, for my small part, I have a book coming out in the fall, which
attempts in an anecdotal way that I hope people will identify with to say,
"hey, I'm an ordinary Joe and this is what I discovered," and that's my
contribution.
SISIS: So do you think media plays a big role in keeping about this state
of truth to affairs which actually exists already?
BC: Yes, there's absolutely no question about that, and that's not a
particularly new thing about media. When De Tocqueville did his tour of the
United States around the time of the American Revolution, he remarked the
role of newspapers and the media in American society as a
consensus-building function. So when I talk about semiotic fields, the
newspapers and media are very, very important in establishing the semiotic
field. That is establishing the set of words and signs that signify the
social consensus. And they also lead the way. They are like, in an
organism, the cells that go and attack an invading force. So, for example,
when I come along and try to introduce this concept of justice as the
application of truth to affairs, which is disturbing to a status quo, the
newspapers and the other media are like the T Cells in the body. This is a
threat to the consensus, to the equilibrium. So they are the first order of
defense. The attack, for example, the neutralization of me, has essentially
been a media phenomenon.
SISIS: So in terms of Gustafsen Lake, Dr. Clark, what does Gustafsen Lake
mean to you now at this point when you are on the verge of leaving the
country in search of safety?
BC: Well, Gustafsen Lake, to me, establishes that some heroic Indians
turned over the last stone that could be turned. And for purposes of my
life, I think I am satisfied with my role there, that I also turned over
the last stone that could be turned. I mean, beyond that, the only sort of
stone left unturned is a stone which I am not willing to try to turn, and
so far as I know none of the native people with whom I have been associated
are prepared to turn, and that's the stone of terrorism, you know, the
bombing of subways, the killing of innocent civilians, wounding and
maiming, and that sort of thing.
You know, although Gustafsen Lake was misportrayed as an act of
terrorism, it wasn't. It was a defensive position occupied by native
people. If they had wanted to kill, if they had wanted to conduct acts of
terrorism, they certainly wouldn't have drawn a line in the sand at
Gustafsen Lake, they would've planted a bomb on the Skytrain in Vancouver.
So, what I am saying is that Gustafen Lake for me, and I think for some
native people, is closure.
SISIS: So it's the end?
BC: It's the end for this society ... for my purposes. That is, those
native people like, I think, Wolverine, who espouse the essential native
culture values of respect and sharing, I think can rest easily in saying
they have done all they can do. There is no more, I mean, they're not
willing to kill others, and hopefully, they're not willing to kill
themselves in despair. And I am in much the same situation.
But that doesn't mean the fight is over because this is a human
problem this is a perennial problem. I mean, I will go to Europe and lick
my wounds and hopefully have some portion of life that isn't involved with
other peoples' affairs and problems, but at the same time, like right now,
you and I are talking, and it may be that something I have done or
something I say in the future, may in some fashion advance the principle of
justice is the application of truth to affairs. And in that, I am always
read to be a messenger or a foot soldier.
But right now, for Canada, in any event, I am so thoroughly
demonized, there is absolutely no point in me doing anything here. I guess
in a way it's cowardice, me leaving this country. But I think I could
overcome the cowardice if I thought there was a point in it. But I just
don't see that I could contribute anything because the demonization of me
has been so totally successful by the police, governments, and by the legal
establishment.
SISIS: Now, I agree, but I do not think your leaving this country is
cowardice, Dr. Clark. I mean, high-ranking and powerful people within the
RCMP have been recorded as saying they would like to "Kill this Clark,
smear the prick and everyone associated with him."
Now most people, most average Canadians, most media consumers,
don't ever see the real issues. What they get is soap opera. What do you
think keeps the average person from being open to, say, Wolverine, and the
traditional native people?
BC: What keeps it, what prevents people, the average person from seeing the
point is this unholy conspiracy between the corrupt non-native legal
establishment, and the corrupt native governmental and bureaucratic
establishment, and the media whose function, since the time of De
Tocqueville, has been to maintain the consensus, to maintain the
established equilibrium.
SISIS: So, at some point, all people have to realize that we are being lead
by the kind of corruption that is destroying ourselves, our future, and the
planet, and that has to be overcome, and then we all have to sit down
together.
BC: Exactly.
SISIS: Just one other thing, Dr. Clark, specifically, about Wolverine's
appeal. When he appeared in BC, he was told by the appeal court that he
could not rely on the Royal Proclamation Act of 1763 as a defense, because
it never applied to British Columbia. Is there any palatable reason, or
reason in law that they could claim this, or was it just an outright lie?
BC: Well, it's irrelevant. All the Royal Proclamation did was reiterate a
point of international and constitutional law, which exists in any event of
the Proclamation. So, the debate as to whether or not the Proclamation does
apply to British Columbia is a complete red herring.
The point is that Chief Justice Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court
remarked in 1832 that there was a body of international and constitutional
law which governed the European invasion or occupation of North America,
and the essence of that international and constitutional law was - and
still is since it hasn't been repealed - was that since the Indians were
here first, and are human beings, prima facie, they have territorial
jurisdiction. And that if the newcomers are going to acquire territorial
jurisdiction, it's a derivative process, and the mechanism for derivation,
as the Proclamation confirmed - but only confirmed. It didn't introduce
anything new, the mechanism for derivation is treaty or purchase.
So for British Columbia to say the Proclamation does not apply,
doesn't affect the fact that the international and constitutional law
apply, because the international and constitutional law are universal. It's
a product of the discovery of the new world. It is simply part of the
fabric of the whole civilization. What the judges are trying to do
essentially by the pretext of saying that Proclamation does not apply, is
carve British Columbia out of the human ethic, and say that it is somehow
some kind of an enclave in relation to which the international and
constitutional law that applies everywhere, doesnt apply there. Well,
that's just silly, It's just a blatant fraud.
SISIS: All right, thanks a lot for this, Dr. Clark.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty
P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2
EMAIL : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html
SOVERNET-L is a news-only listserv concerned with indigenous
sovereigntist struggles around the world. To subscribe, send
"subscribe sovernet-l" in the body of an email message to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For more information on sovernet-l, contact S.I.S.I.S.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
