betsy

This may not just be one case. According to the Western Standard, issue date July 31, 2006 under the title: DEATH BY SENSITIVITY Special Childcare Policies For Natives Killed Phoenix Sinclair "Phoenix Sinclair had been missing from her Winnipeg home since April 2003. For nearly 2 years it seems no one knew where she was. How a child supposedly under the watch of government social workers can disappear for so long - and into a small reserve of fewer that 1,700 residents - without anyone noticing, has raised troubling questions about the standard of care provided to native children at risk in Manitoba. So far, anecdotal incidents of 6 kids who have died while under the watch of Manitoba's Child and Family Services in just the past two years have come to light - all of them native. Like every jurisdiction in North America, Manitoba has a shortage of quality foster homes. For better or worse, CFS has long tried to place native children with native families. Usually they can't - not when 15 per cent of Manitobans are native, while the proportion of native children in foster care is 70 per cent. Still, an increase in official cultural sensitivity toward natives in recent years has led the government to fashion special policies, specific to natives, aimed at providing what Christine Melnick, Manitoba's NDP minister of Family Srevices and Housing, has termed "culturally appropriate services." ------------------ Six native children in Manitoba....in just the past two years!

Although there had been abuses that took place, there were others who had seized the golden opportunity to make a buck (or to promote their own agenda)....to the point of telling lies.

Kindred and gc1765, can you please explain to me: How did it got to be that way? What have the native leaders done about it? If there were some treatise signed, I assume that talks and negotiations were possible between leaders of both sides. Were the native leaders compliant about this residential school system? Because if they were, that is what I meant about it happening with the blessing and cooperation of the natives.

This reminds me of a recent incident. Remember the aboriginal child adopted by non-natives? That child was yanked out of her adopted family.....simply because the adopted parents are not aboriginals. This happened not too long ago. Then there is a similar case, more tragic than that other case. This time, the child died from head injuries (by blunt object) while in the care of aboriginals.....after she was taken from non-aboriginal foster parents. Can you see the similarities here? These incidents did not happen in the distant past.

And I think about that too, and even mentioned in one of the threads that I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is the root cause of a high suicide rate among the Indian youths. The future indeed look quite bleak for any growing child to be "programmed" into thinking and believing that everything and everyone is against him. Just imagine all that bottled anger and hopelessness brewing inside him.

This is exactly what the purpose of residential schools was. Which happened with the blessing or cooperation of the natives. The given implication was that this culture, language and customs were all taken by force, and that the natives were helpless about it. It is imposiible to believe the natives could not have done anything about that when they were able to enter into treatise and agreements...which no doubt had involved negotiations on both sides. As I said, both sides had good reasons at that time...and obviously the native leaders saw something good for their people.

This is all history...in the past...! If we have to dig up history, then the blame cannot solely be placed on the colonials' doorstep. Your ancestors did not fight for your language and culture....and if they did, it was a fight not hard enough. Remember what you've just replied to Kindred above, "That...my dear is your own fault for not using your voice." Your language, culture and customs were not taken from you. Actually, by the sound of it...they've been bartered away by your ancestors through treatise and agreements. Both sides obviously saw something beneficial and positive about it at the time hence those treatise were signed. The colonial government and your ancestors (well-intentioned perhaps in their moves), had both unwittingly done something to your people that WAS not right.

That should apply to all people and all cultures. I now long for old traditions, the same ones that I took for granted or even criticized with scorn when I was younger. I guess it's one of the follies of youth. It is ideal to preserve one's traditions, not only for the sake of "authentic global colors"...but more so for the sake of one's identity. Hence I had once commented in one of these threads that the "white " folks ought to have the right to preserve theirs too.

They showed an obviously drunken guy (you could see his eyes rolling up and he was grinning like an idiot) pee-ing.....then yesterday, they showed the same photo but with the face obscured. I think running the photos in the papers and online in a humiliating way, plus giving their names and make them pay fines will be a much better punishment and deterrent. No need to use up jail spaces....reserve those for the ones we don't want roaming freely around.

Here is what I found about Plank Road Tract. "Protesters say that land, known as the Plank Road Tract, is part of the much larger Haldimand Deed, granted by the Crown to Six Nations in 1784 in recognition of their support of the British Crown during the American War of Independence. The deed included land stretching six miles on either side of the Grand River, from Lake Erie to Dundalk (midway between Owen Sound and Fergus), about 210 kilometres. That initial 950,000 acres was later downgraded by Lieutenant-Governor John Simcoe in 1795 to 275,000 acres. The Haldimand Tract now ends near present-day Elora in Nicol Township. History of the claim: The Plank Road Tract was registered as a land claim in 1987. The claim is based on the argument that the land is part of the Haldimand Tract. The Six Nations band council, in its submissions to Ottawa, claimed the reserve was never properly compensated for land sold to non-natives and land that was taken to build the Hamilton to Port Dover Plank Road (now Highway 6). The protesters: The group says the land is part of Six Nations territory and was never to be sold to non-natives. They charge Douglas Creek Estates is being built on stolen land. They say the dispute has to be settled on a nation-to-nation basis with Ottawa or through some international court. Six Nations Band Council: The elected council is opposed to the protest, but has included the Plank Road Tract as one of 29 land claims registered with Ottawa. http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs...l=1014656511815 I don't know anything about Caledonia, so I assume Douglas Creek land is not within the CURRENT recognised Haldimand Tract near Elora? It's also said how the Band Council is opposed to the protest.

Sorry, but I have skepticism over this opinions of this site you've given. Here is what they've got to say about themselves: "Political Affairs - A Marxist Monthly Political Affairs is a monthly magazine of ideology, politics, and culture. Our mission is to go beyond simply giving an account of events to providing analysis and investigating what is new and changing in our world -- from a working-class point of view. In the pages of PA we start from the most basic fact of life: the ongoing struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. This conflict happens in the workplace, in the government, the courts, on the streets, but also in the realm of ideas. We publish stories on the struggle to defeat George W. Bush and his gang of far-right thugs, the labor movement, the battle for racial justice, the end to war and imperialism, women's equality, the fight against homophobia, and working-class views of popular culture and mass media. While we are partisan, Marxism is not the private property of any person or group. We print a wide variety of views in our quest for truth. Discussion and debate are the only ways to develop better and more useful ideas to defeat the far right, strengthen working people, and build democracy. Political Affairs is a publication of the Communist Party, USA. " http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/static/17/1/3/

Okay, my mistake. The government bought it back from Henco since they (developers) are caught in the middle of the land dispute. So now it’s just between the government and the Six Nation. However, it is clear that the issue of ownership has not been resolved. CanWest News Service Published: Friday, June 16, 2006 CAYUGA, Ont. — The Ontario government has reached a tentative agreement to buy back the plot of land that ignited the Caledonia, Ont. native blockade. Lawyer Donald Brown said the provincial government would buy the property from the developer who was seeking to build more than 600 homes. “The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are resolved,” he told a hearing before Justice T. David Marshall of Ontario Superior Court. “The ultimate use of the land has not yet been decided.” http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...bc24dbe&k=81060

Your previous post implied that the issue had been settled as regarding the ownership of the land in dispute. This statement you've made on post #324. "The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid? Let me put it another way - Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???" To which I've replied.... "When did it get recognised by the government that they have a legitimate claim? I assume you meant "the government or the law" by "they". You got a link? At least it's informative if true.... If the law had recognised that the natives have a legitimate claim, then the law had revoked the order?" Post #325 This statement you made to Riverwind was misleading: "Actually Riv-ahhh - They have been recliamed - they are being held " in trust " by the provincial government. I believe the reason for this is to avoid complicating the issue further than it already is. Instead of seperate agreements, the lands will stay in limbo until such time as a solution is negotiated and a single document can de drafted. Granted, given the way our federal governemt has handled land claims, this may take some time as they are prone to dragging their heels. But hopefully the provincial governeent will be able to move swiftly, so i will give them the benefit of the doubt. " ------------ If you go back as far as post # 324 and review the exchange of discussion we had to this day, you'll understand why we're back...or sort of...back to this. Further more this article that I've brought up only expalins why the judge was asking how come his order was not followed. The natives have not been declared the legal owner of this land, nor has the developers either....and in that regard, you have been right in saying "the matter is in limbo." Because the legality of ownership has not yet been established. You may think you have a legal claim, same as the developer may think he has a legal claim. But thinking that you do (developer and Natives) is quite different than being legally declared that you are the owner. And we ended up arguing about the word "in-trust". As far as I know, my questions are legitimate. You've made misleading statements or impressions (whether innocently or not), still misleading nevertheless.

I have admitted that perhaps I fail to see the connection between this UN Declaration of Rights and Douglas Creek land dispute. Since obviously you are vastly more informed and seem to understand the intricacies of this matter, I had asked that you explain it that I may understand what I'm unable to comprehend. Instead of dishing out little digs of insults, just explain it to me what this new UN Declaration has to do with the Douglas Creek Caledonia land dispute. Resorting to personal insults, instead of answering the direct question is not only negative and unproductive....but it gives the impression that hurling insults is a way of deflecting when one cannot back up a claim.

But your new information (which is the UN Declaration of Rights I presume) is not relevant at all with this issue about Douglas Creek land in Caledonia.

Link please. I base my understanding on the article which link I've posted, where-in it spelt it outright why the land was purchased by the government and held "in-trust". “The purchase agreement responds to the needs and concerns of the Developer” http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2006/16/c9917.html Anyway whether your opinion is true or not, it's hardly relevant....since ownership is still being disputed.

yes, in trust.....but the way it was explained in and the way I understand the article I've given above it was being held "in trust" for the benefit of the developers actually....until the matter of ownership is resolved. The legality of ownership is still in dispute.

I have no problem with human rights. I think we have an idea of what human rights are, especially in the west (although they may not be perfect), and we do not need to be told by a bunch of dictators and corrupt political leaders what it is. If the UN is composed only of 5 countries namely: Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, Iran and Canada...and the first four named countries declared torturing political prisoners is not a violation of human rights and therefore acceptable, do we buy that just because majority of the votes say so? Anyway, that's for another topic. My take is that there is nothing about the declaration that touches the issue of Douglas Creek at all...for the dispute is about the legality of ownership. So why the UN declaration is brought in this particular issue of Douglas Creek is still a mystery to me....or perhaps I just fail to see the connection, hence I'm asking Enskat to explain it to me.

Also I'd like to highlight this part of the article you provided above. As for the involvment of the UN, sorry but I can't say it is something I hold in high esteem.....not because of this particular issue......but for who and what they are. As far as I'm concerned, they've got no credibility and should've been scrapped or ignored. But that is for another topic.

Heres a link to my original response to Riverwinds original post.http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=119122 Betsy - You are closing in on current events!, the post you shadowed from River was from June 24, 2006 This article is from June 30 ( Almost New! ) , but at least it adds to previous discussions regarding UN invlovement with Native Rights Yes, I missed that part of the discussion. Nevertheless, can you please humor me. I've also read the Dec. Of Rights you've provided (plain language only).....and still I can't find anything that would suggest that the issue of ownership reagrding Douglas Creek had been resolved. As I understand it, this Douglass Creek issue is about the government saying it had been sold by the Natives.

Take a look at this article. Significant Progress Made In Caledonia Dispute Land Purchase Clears Way For Six Nations-Federal-Provincial Negotiations; Addresses Concerns of Developers TORONTO, June 16 /CNW/ - The Ontario government has signed an agreement in principle with Henco Industries for the province to purchase the Douglas Creek Estates property in Caledonia. The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are determined at the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations-Canada-Ontario Main Negotiation Table, David Ramsay, Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs announced today. The purchase agreement responds to the needs and concerns of the developer and supports the Main Table's work to develop recommendations on the Douglas Creek lands. The original development plan will not proceed and the future use of the property will be decided at the main negotiation table with consideration of all affected communities' interests. http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2006/16/c9917.html ------------------------- "The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are determined" Therefore, the question of ownership is still in dispute. So the matter has not been settled yet. That's what it says here.

Clearly, the judge is in no position to make a fair decision concerning his own real estate holdings - he is never goign to rule against his own financial interest - he should have been removed from the case as soon it was relised he had a financial connection. Another hypothetical situation - the police physically remove everyone from Kahenhstaton - in the process people are going to be hurt - then the government completes negotiations and the lands are returned officially, now what? We most likely will have victims of this court order ( that was illegally issued because of the huge grey area because the government, judiciary and police are not on the same page) making claims for personal damages. The governement chose to take the matter out of the courts and into negotiation. Same as other land claims accross the country the land should have had an the immediate freeze on the development upheld, followed by a feeze on any prosecution directly or indirectly involved with the land dispute. I have nothing but respect for the OPP's decision to back off until the governement finalises the deal they are negotiating with The Confederacy. I think the OPP realise, even if the judge doesnt, that acting in haste ( ie April 20 ) is the wrong thing to do, and they will wait for a negotiated settlement before taking action with people on the site. The link you provided said: "Meanwhile, Justice David Marshall, of the Ontario Superior Court, expects to adjourn a court appearance today for the commissioner of the OPP, the provincial and federal attorneys general and other parties interested in the dispute until July 5 at 11 a.m. The judge wants to know why police aren't evicting native protesters from Douglas Creek Estates as he ordered Meanwhile, Ontario's Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay met yesterday with Ontario chiefs, including Six Nations Chief David General, in Sioux Lookout, to work out guidelines to help provincial ministries consult natives on matters related to rights protected under the constitution and treaties." ----------------------- So the OPP not acting could just be an unsure-ness on their part related to rights protected under the constitution and treatise...not to mention trying to avoid a repeat of any Oka or incident like that Indian protester that got shot. It was mentioned in other news that this last part was what most probably why McGuinty looked undecisive about acting out on the issue. This last paragraph of the excerpt indicate that there is a confusion about guidelines.

Isn't this Citizens' Alliance the very same one mentioned in the Turtle News? The ones who sided with the natives? "An estimated 60 Caledonia residents made their way to Toronto, on Aboriginal Solidarity Day, Wednesday, to vent months of tension and frustrations. Six Nations residents have been waiting more than 200 years for a resolution to its land issues. Spokeswoman, Janie Jamieson said “I would like to thank the Caledonia Citizens’ Alliance for taking a step towards uniting, with Six Nations, to push the government to resolve land claims. It is even more significant today, because they took our fight to the Premier (Dalton McGuinty) on Aboriginal Solidarity Day.” " So how can this be about race again?

But why does it says this? "The judge wants to know why police aren't evicting native protesters from Douglas Creek Estates as he ordered." If it had been recognized that they have a legitimate claim on the land, and therefore no longer trespassing, why would the judge insist on this? I don't know much about law so this is confusing for me.

Happy Canada Day!!!!