The events in Colelie, and why do the Feds sometimes seem patronizing

In more length, referring to the discussion here, veering off-topic.

This is how I see it:

That Midular’s assassination happened inside Gallente borders gave Gallente the responsibility to react. An ally was wounded while in their care - had they not acted, it would have been a stain on their honor and a cause for worse than the events in Colelie. If no one else interferes or or until someone else requests authority, in such a case the party hosting or controlling the territory must act, or risk being seen as accomplices in the crime itself.

It does not, however, in a person’s mind who understands kin and blood, make it theirs to judge over in isolation. The blood spilled takes priority, and they have full right to request the case to be handed over. To refuse to do so is to spite their wound because “our territory” is to tell them that their grief is not an issue. It is equivalent to saying that your honor (now stained by having let this happen on your watch) is more important than their grief over a death.

It is, indeed, patronizing and arrogant to the extreme.

Note that I am not saying the Republic Fleet was in the right to cross the border against a treaty over an honor dispute. It was an extremely bad strategic decision that made traitors of us and almost spinned out of control into an actual hot war. But on the level of “whose jurisdiction”, it was justified.

This is one thing that the 1000-posts long thread needs to understand before it can even start dreaming to live up to the promise of peace on the subject line. If we operate solely from ideas of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘authority’ that discount tribe & kin, there cannot be a lasting peace. With anyone.


Amen. The victims have the paramount claim on justice, not the location, or the self-appointed owners of it.

As a corollary, this is why so many of our Tribe were angry not only at the Gallente, but at the Republic over what happened. We felt—as Chief Acassa Midular made clear—that the Tribe had the primary claim and authority to take action, not the Republic. I can only hope that had the slain Chieftain not been the Ray of Matar, with all of the special weight that carried with all of the Tribes, the Sebiestor Tribe’s primacy would have been respected.


So what about the other 361 victims at the same event that weren’t part of the republic or tribes according to the information we have.
This was not a lone assassination, and demanding the shooter immediately be handed over denies them and their kin.


This argument would hold if the Federation had been in negotiation with other parties about whose claim of kin takes precedence.

That was not their stated reason to decline, at least.

Personally, I would, had that been the case, argued that the death of a Tribal Chief trumps all other claims, but I admit that is not legally an uncomplicated claim.


Yea - the Republic Fleet commander on the field was Brutor, and I was arguing with them (sue me), against going after justice to my own Chief.

Gods be damned but that day was ■■■■■■-up on so many levels.


That’s an excerpt from the press release on the reason for the initial refusal of extradition. So yes, the other victims was the first listed reason for denial of extradition.
People are too prone to forget the circumstances around these events and remember only certain highlights which then creates a massively biased picture when discussing it years later on.


Memories are subjective, of course. As they should be.

Note again that I am not saying the events in Colelie were the right course of action. I am not arguing that. I am not even arguing that had our claim gone to a properly tribal court against that of other victims, we would have won. We would surely have had a case, it being the Ray of Matar, but I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t think there is much precedent.

For the record, that battlefield was the closest I ever came to ignoring a direct order from a Republic authority while an oathsworn warrior and a leader of a loyalist organization. And you can if you look notice that I claim to be neither of those things anymore.

What I am saying is that the inability of other peoples to recognize the validity of claims of kin and blood and the right to actually even fight over them even if they happen on “your soil” is problematic for lasting peace. The claim was not put to trial. It was dismissed.


We have no idea what went on at the diplomatic level. Which does include legal decisions and experts. Since that sort of matter isn’t decided by a jury type trial even in the Federation normally. Legal debate certainly, but not trial.
We only know what the press release said, which indicated that there was a formal if expedited deliberation of the legal matters involved.
So saying that it dismissed seems very… churlish. And looking to blame the Federation.
Just because the decision went against doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered.

Now, were you talking about the recent posts by certain capsuleers where this originated from as patronizing, I’ll totally agree, because they aren’t actually taking a factual view of the events either, but similarly remembering only the couple of highlights such as the two armed incursions over the issue, rather than attempting to view the whole picture.


What was released was patronizing because it failed to address tribal concerns. Why it did that is academic and as you say, to some extent impossible for us to find out. Personally I have no reason to assume concerns of blood were considered in depth. But yes, the way Feds today still consider it self-evident their jurisdiction takes precedence is the “arrogance” at issue here, as much or more than the past.

As to laying blame on the Federation.

My Chief died while under your hospitality.


Exactly who’s jurisdiction should take precedence?
Would you accept the Amarr claiming their law takes precedence on a crime committed in Minmatar territory on mainly Minmatar people just because one Amarr was involved.
Someone somewhere has to make a decision. And when you have multiple parties with differing views that isn’t going to make everyone happy. But that doesn’t mean that the concerns weren’t addressed. It just means that other concerns were found more pressing. If the only way your concerns can be addressed is getting the specific outcome you desire… then that isn’t wanting your concerns addressed. That’s wanting your way.
Now if you think they failed to address a specific concern, I’m happy to look at your references and material on that matter to learn from it for my own dealings.

Then how about oh… Being constructive on this specific aspect
Sure, your chief died under the federations hospitality (assuming one doesn’t split technical hairs, which I’m prepared not to). Please also note I don’t confuse myself with ‘The Federation’ given the amount of control I have over any goings on is no more than any wealthy base-liner.

But how exactly do you consider this could have been avoided. What improvement can be done.

1 Like

I mean no offense, but.

The way you speak about this is just further proof of the chasm of cultural conflict in effect here, and that those raised in Federal ways have no understanding where the impression of their arrogance stems from.

It is as if the gravity of the words “my Chief died” and “our blood on the floor” do not register at all.


In some Cultures, to Allow a Guest to be killed while under your Hospitality, is viewed as being Equivalent to having Murdered them Yourself. As it is considered to be the Hosts most important Duty to ensure the Safety of their Guests.

The Minmatar seem to be a Culture that holds such Views.

In such a Situation, to declare to the Kinspeople of the Deceased, that You will Investigate first, could be Seen as a Grave Insult.

I am unsure of the nature of the Tribal Chief in relation to Minmatar cultural values. However as Someone that many Minmatar would have sworn Important vows to, their murder would have been Profoundly Upsetting.


The blood claims of a foreign dignitary take precedence. It’s hospitality… how you treat a guest.

Let’s say your brother were guesting in my family’s communal area on Huggar station. It’s a meal. My mother, father, cousins, are all there. A distant member of the Clan bursts in and begins firing on your brother and those around him. Obviously, the majority of the injured or dead will be members of my family. But your brother was our guest. He was offered hospitality, and taken under our protection. His hurts, and yours, if he dies, take precedence. Your claim is given redress first, because that is what it means to welcome someone into your home.

By taking in a guest, you make the promise that they will not come to harm. It’s not just the person who is in charge who makes that promise, either. It’s everyone who claims that space as theirs. Hospitality demands the guest’s injuries, the harm done to the guest, be given the first, and greatest, consideration.

She was the Federation’s guest.

She was a Tribal Chief, attending a Gallente event aimed at international relations, on Gallente Prime. How is it ‘splitting hairs’ to say she was a guest? ‘Oh, I’m standing in your study because you invited me over to listen to you regale me with your stories of our grandparents being friends, but I’m not your guest’??


Gallente security forces could’ve done a more thorough sweep of surrounding buildings for jackwagons with guns, for starters.


After calming down, and realizing the question might actually be genuine and not just a Fed going “well we decide since it’s not clear”:

Where I come from, this would be the first question to a court, if the understanding is not universal between the parties involved. A clan authority in the question of dispute between families, a local court in the question of inter-clan dispute, and so forth up the chain.


As an aside, watching Elsebeth work out this new forum software suite on the fly is delightfully entertaining.


Oh go enlist or something, snow-eater. You are obviously too bored for your own safety.


It seems a bit hypocritical and arrogant to tell the federation that we should do it your way because your customs demand it. Isn’t this the same cultural imperialism that the federation keeps getting yelled at for? Many people died in that attack. An attack that took place in Federation territory and killed Federation citizens, we were well within our right to hold the trial in a federal court.

That being said, a joint trial would have mean a better option.


Oh oh! Reverse cultural imperialism



Ugh… I hate this…

I agree with the Federation. Their space, their rules - and going in mob handed was asking for exactly what that incursion got - a spanking. Had they failed in their duty to their ally in any material way, I can see the Republic having a claim on the Federation, but for the Republic to expect the Federation to set aside their laws entirely was unreasonable.

Whatever the Tribes were hoping to achieve, the armed incursion was the wrong way to achieve it. Surely your alliance gives you a more structured and legal way to seek redress?


The Federation allowed the murder of Tribal Chief and former Prime Minister. Were we supposed to trust your legal system to suddenly stop being incompetent?

Had the Federation responded to calls for extradition by, for example, saying ‘you know what, Republic? Let’s take this to the organization we all agreed would mediate international disputes’, I think the Tribes would have accepted that. We might not have been thrilled, but it would’ve been far less provocative a response to an entire nation of grieving mourners who, let’s face it, learned to solve our problems with violence, and did so with the active support of the Federation.

I mean, really. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to solve his problems with violence, and you can’t really bitch about it when he solves his problems that way with you.

It’s not the only method we have for solving our problems, of course, but when wounded, entities have a tendency to lash out without considering which is the best option. I’m certainly not unsympathetic to the pain of the Gallente who were directly affected, but the entire Republic, even her detractors, felt Midular’s loss in a personal way.

But the Federation—arguably the direct political entity that was in more of a position to be rational at the time—didn’t opt to even ask for third-party mediation. You just refused. You dismissed our claims as though they were so much pollen in the wind.

From our perspective, that flat refusal to recognize our claim was a direct insult and provocation, and let’s face it, we weren’t exactly in a rational state at the time. Our strength comes when we act together. We reach our greatest triumphs, and we suffer our worst pains, together. When the Ray of Matar was killed, and justice flatly denied us… we went mad. together.

Some of us stay mad for a very, very long time.

I believe it’s called ‘CONCORD’. I mean, that’s kinda one of the things CONCORD was established for, right?