Every time I read a story about the civil suit launched by David and Dana Chatwell against the Ontario government, among others, my imagination goes wild.
I feel terribly for everyone affected by this tragic case. I feel for this poor couple and their child, for they were clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time. I also know the history of the land claim that is the important back-story to this dispute, and empathize with the first nations claim and the position of the occupiers of the land.
I can’t help but wonder: why did the parties not call a mediator? Mediation is an important part of the conflict resolution culture of the Six Nations. It is also an important part of our litigation culture. A mediated dialogue could surely have resulted in some understanding, some form of accommodation that was good enough for all. Why did the protestors not propose mediation with Mr. Brown and Ms. Chatwell? If they did propose it, why did it not happen?
This story illustrates the impact extreme emotions can have on a negotiation, and how difficult they can make it for people to react rationally to difficult circumstances. I think it also underscores the profound cultural differences at stake here.
When I read about the altercations that occurred, I start to imagine the many other endings this story could have had. I have to believe there was a time, at the very beginning of this dispute, when Mr. Brown and Ms. Chatwell and the protestors could have sat down together, discussed their respective concerns, and arrived at a solution that was better for everyone than what ended up happening.
Why did this not happen? I do not understand.
That’s very true.
We’ve all been in situations that get out of hand, where all sides are stubbornly “sticking to their guns”. The original issues become irrelevant and the only things that seem to matter are winning, getting even, and/or saving face.
There’s a big lesson to be learned here: You should always take the time to relax, breathe, and cool off before responding to situations. Leave your ego out of it and just address the matters at hand.
If things get out of hand, if it seems that all hope is lost and that no agreement could ever be reached, just call Hilary: She has a nice big table, comfy chairs and an endless supply of candy, chocolate and refreshments to enjoy!
You and your opponents will quickly learn that it is nearly impossible to curse, swear, or insult eachother when you have your mouth stuffed with candy, cakes & cookies! This gives everyone ample time to sit, to think and then address the real issues. Check your egos at the door, please.
We need to introduce a piece of legislation that will automatically kick in when protest takes place such as the protest in Caledonia. Might I once again suggest that you take such legislation to parliament asking that the provincial government in conjunction with the Federal government introduce an addendum to the Ipperwash report, (bringing it up to date ,so to speak). Such legislation should layout a automatic community compensation package, both for residents and businesses. I say automatic in that certain protest qualifying standards are necessary for such legislation to kick in. My sense is that Caledonia would more than meet any protest qualifications determined. Clearly, based on how the provinical and Federal governments are acting out this current stalemate, aboriginal protest will continue to take place for decades to come. Having said that we need to pursue community compensation, otherwise there will be more bloodshed. My sense is that both levels of government have taken a “let them bring it to court attitude” before they will pay out. Well let me tell you, should these court cases be decided in favour of the plaintiffs then my sense is the province is going to be inundated with lawsuits. We all know that the OPP “laissez faire” attitude regarding the protest is politically rooted. Having said that, I believe both the class action lawsuit and the Brown-Chartwell suit wil uncover the facts and ofcourse invariably will result in (hopefully) substantial compensation. If that is the case then the voting base will understand that to get any real meaningful government assistance, one must sue. Should this prove to be the case I predict much more litiigation will ensue as many have painfully suffered.
Chris thanks for taking the time to comment on this important issue. Feel free to send more thoughts!
Wise words from a wise man! This is such a complex problem with such deep roots; I could not pretend to have the answer but there has to be a better way to look for it.