Oka Crisis Essay

The Oka Crisis is a historical violent event that occurred in 1990 between the first nations and the Canadian government. It all began on July 11,1990 when the decision of the expansion of a golf course on land that the Mohawk of the Kanesatake had claimed fir years was announced by the mayor of Oka, Quebec (Robinson, 2017). This led to a 78-day standoff between the Mohawk protestors and officials of Oka, later involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The protestors had built a barricade to show their ownership of the land, but the police continued to attack with tear gas and concussion grenades (Robinson, 2017). The issue relating to the criminal code is the death of “Cpl. Marcel Lemay, who died during a bungled police raid on a

Mohawk barricade” (“Police lawyer tries to halt inquest into Oka crisis death”, 1993). Although no one was charged for this crime, it arose tension in the society of Oka.

The occurrence of this event exemplified the importance of Indigenous land rights, and how indigenous people must fight for their opinion to be heard. This incident was more recent than other standoffs between indigenous people and society this allowed it to be well publicized. In today’s society, the expansion of a golf course does not outweigh the rights of first nations to their land. Which should not have necessarily been an issue worth disputing in the past. Although times have changed including citizens, the laws against racial profiling still existed. The indigenous people are insubordinate because of their race and the media portrays them as the “bad guys” when they are simply fighting for their rights. If they have occupied and claimed this land for generations, they should have a right over this

land.
No charges were pressed for the death of Surete du Quebec officer, corporal Marcel Lemay, during the firearm confrontation between the Mohwaks and officers (“No charges were laid in the shooting death of a Quebec police officer during Oka crisis”, 2006).

This murder occurred on a battle ground, where anyone could have been liable but it is very obvious to society who is to blame. While both groups of people believed that it was caused by the opposing group, Daniel Rochefort, the lawyer representing several senior police officers said, “that of 68 witnesses who have so far testified at the inquest, 30 have been police officers and nine have been native” (“Police lawyer tries to halt inquest into Oka crisis death”, 1993). The witness testimonials are clearly against the police officers, a potential reason not to press charges if they are not against the native. Even though the government would protect the police, it is intriguing that the death did not catch too much of the media’s attention. The arguments and issues that the press focused on was about the aftermath of the murder, no significant importance was given to murder itself. The question remains, would charges have been pressed if majority of the witnesses found the natives liable instead. Rochefort further argues that “instead of focusing on who killed Lemay on the morning of July 11, 1990, the inquest has placed a magnifying glass on the administration of the provincial police force” (“Police lawyer tries to halt

inquest into Oka crisis death”, 1993). This can conclude that the police were indeed at fault for the death of Lemay. The decision to focus on the administration of the police force was a potential tactic used to take the attention off of the police. It further exemplifies how the members of Oka’s society took precedence over natives in this case.
Just like any other historical event the media of course, plays a major role in portraying the crime. Several photographers and journalist had stayed on the land to get this most out of this event. Peter Sibbald, a Toronto based photographer was one of them and explains “that the slow and often uneventful nature of the crisis created a need for the media to keep the story alive during lulls in the action” (Porter, 2001). Unlike the present, in 1990 there weren’t as many major events happening that would gather the public’s attention and foreign events were not as easy to report or even get to. This is why the media was more focused on current issues, and something that goes on for three months will most definitely lose the public’s interest. The media has the power of overexerting a story because they tell the story that the reporter reports. While it may be harder to do so now with several different media outlets, in the 1990s and earlier they definitely took advantage of this situation. They basically took charge if the society’s perception of an event. They can manipulate and event to make it more beneficial to a single party, which occurred in several murder trials such as the trial of Daniel Perry Sampson, where the society has convicted the suspect because of his race before the trial was completed.
Bias was definitely present during the coverage of this crisis, it was mainly against indigenous people because of their race, but they were not the only victims of media bias. There wasn’t’ a constant physical fight involved in this crisis and the protestors were patient holding their ground. The photographer also said that "After July 11, there was more and more editorializing. The media really capitalized on the symbols, the visual signs of the conflict. In a way, they villainized the warriors. There was some really uneven coverage" (Porter, 200). Since this issue suddenly became a topic of interest, the media’s portrayal of it became even more important. The Warriors began to be villainized by the media, because they were the source of information to reporters. Bury, editor of the Sherbrooke Record at the time reported that “soldiers used psychological games on reporters, pointing rifles at them, harassing them with racial and sexist insults and calling them at all hours -- before the phones were cut” (Ward, 1990). Reporting at an incident such as this one was not the easiest, and other issues such as this began to attract the public rather than the land dispute. However, reporters used information to their advantage, even if it involved extreme majors to get this information. A former Globe and Mail columnist, George Bain also said that “newspapers were filled with "warmly moist accounts" of the Warriors and that there was "a distinct tendency to romanticize" their actions (Ward, 1990). The newspapers worked in favour of the warriors, they were the ones in control because they provided the information to reporters. The indigenous people were being victimized because they did not have the same voice as Oka’s society or power in media. It was obvious who the media favoured in this case, and caused a bias in race to exist while reporting this news. Sibbald also stated that “he and his colleagues witnessed the media becoming a more active participant rather than the neutral bystander (Porter, 2001). By their actions media involved themselves in this crime and probably reported a one-sided story.