Temagami Scourge

Activist judges? Are some of you people for real? Activist Judges my beige butt. If there were truly activists judges in this country, then where are all the "completed" native land claims? Wouldn't Canada be awash in Native lands since the Crown has repeatedly violated agreement after agreement? Well, it's not, so your judges are certainly working for the side of "Canada". Likewise, if there were activist judges, then why are both provincial and federal jails full of non-whites still? Native and Afro-Canadians are still far, far over represented in the system, but they aren't flooding the streets on early parole. Additionally, why are we crying about activist judges when the crime rates are actually going down. To me, the problem is two-fold: the media reports matters a certain way to sell papers or ensure people watch their news show, and the current justice system is designed to work towards rehabilitation. We don't see news reports about the dozens of people on early release who are straightening out their lives, using the education they acquired in jail to get into decent work, and start families...but the one guy or girl who fooled the system and recommits hits the headlines, and then the mindless start whining that the system is broken. On this thread, the problem is that an elected MP is acting like a mindless sycophant to the idea that Supreme Court judges are Gods, and yet there is no compelling proof from any SCC judge that they subscribe to that notion, nor is there evidence that demonstrates that they are playing favorites except when it comes to native land claims, and clearly, the majority non-natives are favorites. Lastly, if successive governments (and this is aimed at both liberals and conservatives) didn't abrogate their duty and bothered to make the law instead of sending it up to the SCC all the time, then why are we complaining about the judiciary when it is the Executive that is failing Canada.

Nothing like having the last word.... Anyhoo, I received a copy of an excellent letter to the Hamilton Spectator on the Caledonia issue. The letter emanated from an area lawyer, and I'm sure that his perspective would make many a racist Caledonian spin and decry him for being a traitor to Canada, but the man actually knows what he is talking about. Almost brings back some respect for lawyers: Re: 'Natives are subject to the law' (Letter, Brent Whetstone May 9,2005) Indeed. But there is much more to "the law" applicable in Caledonia than traffic laws or the terms of an injunction arising out of a one-sided ("ex parte") quickie hearing. And while governments know this, it appears that they aren't telling people in Caledonia. The Crown's Treaties with the Iroquois, including those of Albany and Montreal in 1701, the Silver Covenant Chain and the Two Row Wampum are part of applicable Law. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is part of the Canadian Constitution. So is Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. These laws bind the governments of Canada and Ontario, and the rest of us. Our own Supreme Court repeats that they MUST be upheld, because "the honour of the Crown is at stake". The Haldimand Grant is part of this law. Its "surrender" or "sale" in whole or part by the Iroquois may well be non-existent, fraudulent or invalid (even according to non-native Canadian law). I suspect the federal Crown knows this, but had simply planned over the intervening 160 years that the Iroquois would be assimilated and disappear. The Iroquois Confederacy is centuries or millennia old. Its leaders, clan mothers and members (all reasserting their nation in Caledonia) are still telling us that in their view their own Iroquois structures and laws have never been legitimately displaced by Euro-Canadian ones. They are reminding us of solemn nation-to-nation Treaties that are no older or less important than the Treaty of Paris between England and France of 1763 (the ongoing basis for Quebec being part of Canada). It is far from clear that the Iroquois Confederacy members re-occupying their lands are legally in the wrong. If they are, why has the federal government spent the last 20 years or so frantically evading having to account to the Six Nations Band Council in Court for the Crown's (mis)handling of the vast Haldimand Grant that it holds in trust for the Iroquois people? It is time that Canadians remind themselves of ALL of the applicable law, not just the bits that seem to justify our occupation and takings of others' lands. The only alternative is the use of overwhelming military force against the Iroquois, to conquer them. But Canada's legitimacy and reputation would take a severe beating if the colonial and oppressive nature of its relationship with aboriginal peoples was thus laid bare. Respect for the law is not a one-way, natives-only street. Non-natives and their governments must respect the law too, and all of it. Andrew Orkin Barrister and Solicitor Hamilton Renegade; Please make a point of taking this to heart. You are one of the posters that insists on the rule of law -which is fair- but then turns around and consistently denies the need for Canadians to obey their own laws ie. maintaining treaty rights don't exist, saying that treaties are old and should be overridden, implying that Canada should overturn their own laws to the satisfaction of non-Native Canadians etc. hope you folks learned something.

River: ...negative comments directed at the GG ....that were racial were a result of years of 'affirmative' action programs that have undermined the credibility of any qualified minority person appointed to senior positions. a) River, you never cease to amaze me. You can pin the blame for racism on anything. "Affirmative Action" is a yankee term. In Canada, we used "Employment Equity". I object to affimative action programs for the same reason I object to native treaties. Because of all the non-whites involved? Institutional racism creates an environment where those kinds of people feel they are justified in making those comments. If you want to blame racist commentary on Institutional racism, then be my guest. I prefer blaming it on poor parenting and poor role modeling myself. Vancouver has had a influx of wealthy Chinese immigrants in the last 20 years. This influx has created tensions and cultural conflicts with the existing residents of Vancouver. The fact that the Chinese migrants are so much wealthier than the average Vancouverite is a source of resentment for many. However, these resentments have not turned into the type of virulent racism that is directed at Natives. There are many reasons for the difference - one of them is the fact that these Chinese migrants have to pay taxes like everyone else. Again, I don't quite agree with your assessment. I think that it is easier being racist towards a poor minority person than a rich one. however, I'm sure that there are plenty of virulent statements made against the rich Chinese by their non-Chinese employees who are jealous of the wealth of their employer, but I bet that is usually said behind closed doors. Cheers

What do we do about the 12 year old that wiped out her family in Medicine Hat? If we put her in under the current rules, she'll be out sometime between her twenty-fifth and thirtieth birthday...or in other words, just in time to purchase a gun legally. Keeping criminals off the street is a no-brainer, but I've yet to see a government of any stripe pick up the bull by the horns and work to prevent crime. As my grandpa used to say, an ounce of prevention is worth spending $100K to keep a criminal behind bars for a year, or something like that.

Dog: "How do you know she used his name?" Hey, That's scriblett's MO. He finds someone who has an idea, he latches on to it as his own, and then it becomes gospel. Anyone with a questioning mind usually pooh-pooh's this kind of tripe and waits to hear a bit more, but some folks can't pass up on grabbing the banner and running with it, regadless of fact.

I think its well within protocol for the GG to ask military wives questions, and I also think that Canoe.ca news rags tend toward the sensational, and this story offered just enough to turn it into a whole different beast. My only fear is that Scriblett will accuse the GG of something, and it will not be based on political views.

River: For the most part racism has disappeared from Canadian society, Hey...quick, look out the window. Are you sure you are in Canada or LALA-land? however, it still persists between Natives and non-Natives. Uh oh, I don't think someone gets off the farm too much. I believe it is a direct result of the legal framework created by native treaties which institutionalize racism. Yes, and that is why I've often asked you and others to go after your MP and ask them to initiate change. Don't say you want to, just do it. Eliminate this institutionalized racism and you will see that in a generation or so that racism disappears among the population at large. Now we are back to dreaming again. Did you read any of these political threads when Michaelle Jean was made GG? that was depressing. However, if you insist on preserving the institutionalized racism then you can't really complain about experiencing racism. You can't have it both ways. Buddy, there is nothing I can do about it. the ball is entirely in the governments hands on this, not mine or any other Native...which makes me wonder why you like to blame us for this state of affairs? Plus, much of the racism I experience is personal, not institutional...you know, white guys calling me timber -nigger or wagon-burner, glue huffer or alcoholic...you know, that kind of thing. In ending, are you ready to apologize to Native folks for what you said about the Caledonia hate poster? I'd be glad to accept your apology on behalf of all the Natives in Canada. I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

river: So where did this latent racism come from? from moms and dads across Canada, sitting at the dinner table in front of their children and talking out loud about how their taxes have to pay for useless, alcoholic, glue-sniffing redskins. How do I know this? When my oldest boy was in kindergarten in Temagami, one of his white peers called him a "nigger". I know the kid's Dad, and it didn't surprise me. He avoided talking to non-whites as much as possible. Too bad his son couldn't get the race right, but I can't help but think that that kid is about the same age as Politika, and that kid has made a number of racist comments too. Heck, he even told us how his mom knew all about the "big cheques" the Indians got. That, river, is where kids learn to be racist. I'm glad I could help point this out to you and increase your learning. it is my pleasure. "The only way to eliminate the problem with racism is to eliminate the legal distinctions between Canadians who happen to trace their ancestry back to native groups and those who don't.' Well, get elected federally and get at it! Are you going to apologize and show us how manly you are?

River: "I agree that the racism expressed in that post is deplorable, however, you should at least acknowledge that this racism did not come from no where. It is a direct response to the illegal occupation by the Natives and the refusal by authorities to enforce the law. Trying to pretend that there is no connection is intellectually dishonest" True, but as Mike said, initially supporting the hate poster is going a step too far in your zeal. I must point out that I agree with you about this racism not coming from nowhere. I am a firm believer in the reality that once your back is turned and you are out of hearing, then people will make jokes about you amongst themselves. In Caledonia's case, it appears that this latent racism has always been there, just unspoken, and now that a catalyst has been found to vent racist tripe, the non-Native people of Caledonia are showing their true colours. That, in turn, is certainly reflected on this board, considering the commentary. Maybe you should apologize again, to Native people like myself. That would be manly.

Scriblett, Riverend: Hate crime unit investigating By Paul Legall The Hamilton SpectatorCALEDONIA (May 4, 2006) The OPP hate crime unit is investigating a poster inciting Caledonia citizens against natives occupying the Douglas Creek Estates. "Citizens of Caledonia Town Meeting Tonight. Agenda: discussion the Indian Proplem (sic). What is the Final Solution?" the poster states. A photo of Ku Klux Klansmen figures prominently on the poster. Constable Dave Meyer said the local OPP has received one copy of the poster, which was turned over to the hate crime unit. He said the lack of a time or date for the supposed protest suggest it may be a hoax. Police don't know the origins of the handout. Figures things would come to this sooner or later.

Scriblet: How many times do I have to tell you it shouldn't matter who 'was here first', What are you talking about? Everything matters on who was already here, for the simple reason that even the Crown realized that the Indians already had an overlying interest/title/recognized ownership or whatever you want to call it over every inch of the land here. They could have taken the land through warfare, but they didn't. The Crown made a conscious decision to extinguish any Aboriginal right to this country through Treaty signings. Under no circumstances were the treaties signed solely because the Aboriginal were a different race. I would agree with you or anyone else who whines about race-based agreements IF the Treaties were signed solely to provide benefits and rights to another race for nothing in return. But that is far from the case. If hobbits were here first, you'd still be whining about "what makes them so special". In your case in particular Scrib, the problem you have is that you believe articles like the Redden one you linked because it makes you feel warm inside if you can say that Natives are immigrants to. However, to give you an idea of how ludicrous an argument that is, then we can technically argue that none of the Nations of Europe are entitled to their countries because they only moved in after the ice melted. If we wanted to argue from Redden's perspective, then we should really be arguing over who owns what piece of Africa, since that is where Homo Sapiens developed. you can have the Darfur. and personally I don't care. I don't care what colour your skin is or anything else, Bullshite. You say over and over that the benefits and rights are "race-based". You don't recognize the fact that the Natives were already here and controlled certain tracks depending on which Nation resided on them. From your perspective, you are saying that the race of the guy whose property you bought is more important that the fact that he owns it and is selling or renting the land in question. ...as far as I'm concerned we are talking as 'equals' except you don't seem to subscribe to 'all people should be treated equally' hey, if you want to be raped by priests in your quest for equality, be my guest. However, If we are going to speak on equality, was there a system in place where your forebears were open to systemic abuse? Have you ever been declined for a job because of the way you looked? Have people ever crossed the street because you happen to walking on the same side as them? Do the police ever stop you just to run "a quick check on you" because you are non-white, but driving an expensive car? How often are your family and friends taken out to the edge of town and beaten by the police on a cold wintry night? There are over 500 missing Aboriginal women in this country. Some have most likely become pig feed. Do you care, or do you know? Why are GTA police sending around autopsy pictures of Native women with "final solution" captions? Is that funny? Does it make things easier when you dehumanize people? Show me the equality, Scriblet. Calling me Canadian is one thing, but acting like I am is something totally different. Are autopsy photos of white women making the rounds? I'd love to see some equallity in this country, but I have a hard time when people still ask ignorant questions like "are you a full-blooded Indian". I have yet to see someone say "So, are you a full-blooded white man?" the day I do is the day I'll beleive we are "equal".

Scriblet le Taxpayer: "What treaty says "Natives will have a blank cheque to attend university for as long as they want" or "natives will not pay taxes "?" All of them, in on shape or another. However, they don't quite put it the way you do. In some treaties, there is no description of medical care, but reference to the signatories having perpetual access to the medicine box. now, I know someone like Rene will say "Hey...they said medicine box, not medicare!", but for some Nations, that is the manner they used to describe health care. It's just like oblique terms like "the reading of letters" meaning education etc. Many of the ncilliary promises...the ones that you guys seem to hate so much, were usually recorded on a list. The treaty document was used to record the surrender of land and some of the benefits. The Indian Act took all these lists and rolled them into the Act, so there are actually some promises made to certain bands that the government unilaterally decided to dispense to all bands through the Act. However, find out the particulars is an impossibility now, and the government doesn't want to change the Act because it costs too much to attempt...especially now because the Indians are educationally on the same page. "These things all come about as a result of legislation, the only treaty specific items include matters related to the utilization of lands and natural resources. . ." bingo...some, but not all. and the problem lies with your government, not the indians. Bug them. I don't see the benefit or relation to the "true native way of life", , Geez, buddy, don't tell me you expect to me to prance around the bush in skins making war cries! this is the twenty-first century! That's what kills me about some of my fellow "Canadians". they get on this "return to their roots" kick. Give me a break. how does electing my own Native government to represent me mean that I have to live in a wigwam? I don't expect Euro-Canadians to return to sailing ships and muskets, so why is it the expectation the other way around? "that is, having a system whereby chiefs can give housing to whomever they want, where grants can be squandered without audits, where the operating grants per man, woman and child exceed $100,000 annually (and that doesn't include freedom from taxes and free education), and of course those Chiefly travel bills that have exceeded provincial cabinet ministers." . hunh? Where does this happen? Every band I know has a housing list unless you can build on your own. Every band has to have an audit done and posted in public. Heck, all the audits for every First Nation in Canada is posted on INAC's website. Have you never seen them? Exceeding every man, woman and child? holy geez! Is this the Reserve from heaven or what? My nations has a total operating budget of around $5 million a year for 600 band members. That only works out to around $8500 a year, and that INCLUDES medical, housing and education! In fact, education actually was cut back a couple of years ago (nice of your government to live up to their end of the bargain!), so we would have had more to invest. Canadians really do not want a racist system of giving over cash and benefits based on ancestry which does not seem to provide a decent standard of living for all natives. . Bud...how many time do I have to say that the benefits flow because we were here first? When are you going to quit with this racist bullshit and talk to me like an equal. just because my skin is different and my hair is black doesn't mean squat. the simple fact is that my forebears signed legal agreements with yours that ensured the land was Canada's in perpetuity in exchange for certain rights and benefits. geez..get back to me when you can be more coherent and get off this racist crap.

Taxpayer Criblet: I havn't made any 'anti-native' statements A lot of times, you sit there and applaud while others do, but that's typical of people like you. No Crib, you don't use terms like wagon burner or timber nigger...instead, you just like to perpetuate sterotypes of Native people, and then say "Oh, but that's the truth". like on April 26th: "The mayor tells it like it is but gets in trouble for it, just not pc you know to tell the truth about of taxdollars ". You agree with the Mayor saying that we are welfare bums? where is my cheque, then? The protestors down at the blockade are mainly steelworkers between jobs who are paid by the tobacco company on Six Nations to carry on with the protest. The majority of people, like me, rotate when we can. But personally, my favorite Scribletism is: "...simply encourage the "bad" culture of laziness and personal "unacountability". How can a young native person growing up on a reserve be expected to grow up with any self esteem at all? By being segregated on a "reserve" he is being told that he is not "worthy". How can he grow up with any sense of accomplishment when the govt has provided everything for his family? How can he grow up with a work ethic in this situation " I have to let my 16 year-old, reserve-living, made the Rep team and has a solid "B" average at high school know that he is in for it. I have to blame it all on my dumb, steel-working, house-owning, SUV-driving brother-in-law for being such a bad role model. but of course Crib, ALL res Indians are pathetic. If this is the case, can I say that all euro-Canadian men are potential mass murderers and serial killers because all mass murderers and serial killers in canada have been white? I stand by my belief that ALL CANADIAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY' funny, I have yet to see you refer to Native people as Canadians. Do you have Geoffy disease? Such inflammatory accusations only create more animosity and distrust, one of the main reasons there is little discussion of the issue. . . Damn right its inflammatory...you trying to say that my reserve family are lazy and lacking self-esteem. Then again, it is easy to say pretty near anything, ain't it Crib? Re: CoonCome: "When our people tried to obtain a moderate livelihood from the sea, white mobs burned our boats and beat our people.'' What are you talking about? White Mobs did burn their boats. French white mobs in particular, but mobs nonetheless! Are you trying to tell me white people can't be in mobs? Geez, you should come to Caledonia on a friday night. If it makes you feel better, indians can get into mobs too. Indians just aren't serial killers and mass murderers. In fact, Mi'kmaq fishermen got into violent clashes with fisheries officials after they knowingly defied federal fishing regulations. Minor injuries resulted. yes...and that was when they set out their traps. The DFO attacked the Indians. The Indians didn't go after the DFO. Kinda the same as the OPP in Caledonia. To rely upon a hazy or even nonexistent connection with men and women dead for thousands of years, however, in order to claim special privileges and influence today is morally and intellectually dishonest and despicable. . What a minute. You said that the Caledonia land was legally sold in 1841 to the Crown and wasn't Indian land, and I disagreed and said there is still a question as to surrender. How come you can say your ancestors are in the right while I'm not allowed to? What seems to keep giving you the idea that you and your forebears are better than me and mine? Again, I hope I haven't hurt your taxpaying feelings. you don't mind me calling you taxpayer eh, or is that racist too?

Geoff: The problem is that Indian groups have no money to provide these services, so they'd be back on the provincial welfare rolls quickly. As I told Rene moments ago, this would not be an issue if your government merely rolled back their laws and lived up to their treaty obligations. Please, contact your MP and let them know that they need to roll back their law and just live up to the treaties they signed. One of the only feasible concepts is to remove the reserves and have them become Canadians. Well, actually Geoff, I disagree because you don't recognize Natives as Canadians. You keep saying "indians groups this" and "indians groups that". You don't show us you want us to be Canadian when you can't even refer to us by that term. Land claims are a joke, all of a sudden you can make a claim on privately held land hundreds of years after your treaty? Uhoh....you should a little jealous and flustered! Hundreds of years? Even if the land in Caledonia was lost in 1841, that would be 165 years, wouldn't it Geoff? Exaggerating a tad, are you? If you need a hand counting, just let me know and i'll help you out. Tough, should have mentioned it before in the treaty or original land claims. Actually, I'm of the impression that this is exactly how the province of Ontario feels right now. Here Geoff, let me help you write too: But when Indians Canadians are off reserve, they have to obey by our Canadian laws and right now, they are trespassing. If white people Canadians were doing that to protest whatever, we'd all be arrested and charged. But instead, because they are Indians Canadians, they can protest and destroy local economies all they want with no repercussion. We need to kick them all off ourCanadian roads, put them on their reserves. This is the key problem in this thread, people don't seem to care that these Indians Canadians are breaking the law. That's all I need to know to go arrest them. Canada needs some new leadership in dealing with the Indian Canadian problem in our country. Someone that will lay down the law that is good for Canadians first and not the IndiansCanadians like we seem to cater to at every step. There...now it almost sounds like you want us to be Canadians too! You're Welcome Geoffie!

Rene: "What I'm trying to get clarity on is what our legal obligations are to Native groups we've made agreements with." well, I've pointed out a number of ways already, but you don't seem to believe me, so I suggest you call or email INAC and ask them. Try by email and post it back for use to see. Everything I've seen and read, shows that the government can unilaterally recind those benefits, save those which are explictly spelled out in the treaties. Yeah...I've told you that too. That's why I'm not fond of the Indian Act and the plethora of amendments, because a group of non-natives can change it as they see fit, and without a whit of input from the people most impacted...the Indians. Kinda makes a mockery of democracy. We finally agree. I don't need my government doing things on your behalf either. Let's leave it to native groups to run their own welfare, medicare, and housing and whatever social programs they want. I'm fine with the government living up to their treaty obligations, and we'll pay you your four dollars yearly. buddy...don't tell me this. Write your MP. Hell, just copy the above statement and send it in. let them know you want Canada to remove itself from its current role and just stick to its treaty obligations. Please...and ask your friends to do likewise.

I'm sorry you feel that way Geoff. However, we've played by Canadian rules, and all I see my taxes going to is to keep a line of Clifford Olsen's, Robert Pickton's and Paul Bernardoes having a good laugh at the rest of us while in jail. To me, that signals failure in your system , so we (I'm referring to Natives) may as well re-insitute our own. Happy Seal hunting Geoff!

Sam: I'm no liberal, conservative or NDP'er, but Harris was great? Are you kidding? the man left us saddled with a highway run by a thrid party for 99 years, and people hate it. his actions led to the death of Ontarians like Dudley George. He had the names of "welfare abusers" posted in the media until people found out that male ex-boyfriends and husbands were making false claims against their exes in an attempt to hold them hostage. but his best legacy is, instead of spending a few shekels to keep kids occupied at after-school programming, he cut it all, and now those mischevious 8 and 9-year olds are in their young twenties and running around the GTA with guns and being involved in gangs. Why are they in gangs? It was easier to recruit them when no one else gave a crap about them after being turned out of a defunct after-school program. Thank's Mike. The fact is, no one is fit to lead. Unless mcGuinty absolutely shoots himself in the foot, he'll win again by a majority, in the same way everyone expected Harris to lose the second time around. That is how Ontario votes.

River: The natives were not able to exercise control over the territory and the lost it to invaders. river...don't confuse the Canadian and American experiences. Americans fought war after bloody war with their native population and soundly beat them. Canada looked at the American method of dealing with Natives, pooh-poohed it as animalistic, and decided to negotiate treaties with the natives instead of fighting wars. That is why our history is not as bloody as America's. In fact, those old colonists loved to point out how much more "superior" they were to their American counterparts given their different methods. the British loved to point out how all they had to be was be straight with the natives and everything is fine. The only people in this country who were truly beaten were the French. If anyone has less of a right to be sovereign, its them. They surrendered while we remained allies of the Crown. you should remind them of that whenever you speak about Quebec separatism. The other hassle is that we have a generation of Canadians who spent saturday morning watching John Wayne movies, and believing them. The same thing happened to the Angles when the Saxons invaded England in 1066. The Angles and Saxons fought, they didn't sign treaties. The Romans and Celts fought, and didn't sign treaties. British history is rife with savagery...its too bad it took so long to get it right. You can whine all you want about injustices in the past, however, you cannot 'fix' injustices in the past You can if you are supported by Canadian law using legal Canadian documentation, which is what the Treaties represent. If we were beaten by a european army, then I'd have no choice but to agree with you, but we weren't. We made mutually-beneficial agreements that, sadly, your government is ignoring at every step. Furthermore, your argument does not refute the statement that native land claims are simply a form of apartheid that would not be tolerated in any other situation. Can you explain to me how you came to this conclusion? I never said land claims are a form of apartheid. What are you referring to? Your argument simply attempts to justify this apartheid by making dubious claims about rights conferred to people of certain races based on when their ancestors first showed up on this continent. I'll repeat this again: "You can whine all you want, but all I'm doing is explaining Canadian law to you. You might not like it, as I don't, but it is fact, and it is based on who was here first to extinguish land rights. Just because the first people here happened to be Natives is sheer fate. As I've also said (and which you clearly forget because it screws you up), I don't believe our shared government looks to give people money just based on their physical appearance. I think they give out money to erase interests and make a free and clear legal path for themselves. When you say race-based, you are forgetting that the "race" you whine about was here and had title to Canada. you make only half an argument, and I use this to my advantage." I hope the bolding helps make the point far clearer.

mike: "The opportunity for dialogue here, as hostile as it can be, should be explored. This discussion really couldn't happen in a coffee shop in Winnipeg so let's treat it as a valuable opportunity to gain some intelligence." Here Here Yes, I'm sorry for my part Mike, but I, like many humans, tend to react...especially when it seems like it is one person after another making insulting comment after comment. The truth be told, there are liquor issues with the Caledonians, and I do refer to them time after time, but that doesn't give me artistic license to condemn all white people. Forgive my intemperateness.

Rene: Your wrong about pretty near everything in your last post save this: "If your point is that the Indian Act and the Constitution Act have given Native groups certain priviliges, I'm not disputing that. But unilateral acts can be unilaterally changed to revoke those privlliges as long as agreements or treaties are not violated." This is exactly what irks me about the treaty process. As you'll see from the amendments, the Crown took it upon itself to alter the Act to suit its fancy while condemning the Natives. Two major changes to the Act in the 1880's disallowed Ghost dances and the potlatch. These two ceremonies were critical to the prairie and west coast Nations, respectively, and did much to diminish their spirits. The potlatch in particular was a method of renewing leadership vows, acknowledging leaders, creating alliances, arranging marriages and generally solidifying society. This all fell apart and created quite a lousy time for west coast people. Added to this was the fact that Priests and Reverends came into the community and began convincing people that these ceremonies were devil-worship only exacerbated the splits in the community. The same thing creates issues at Six nations. The 1924 amendment made the Confederacy Chief system illegal and installed an Indian Act system for Chief and council. Gone were the days when the clanmothers openley condoled the Chiefs with the deer antler headdress, and it became one-man, one-vote. Well, the longhouse people just went underground, and kept the clanmother system alive until it began coming to the forefront recently. We don't need the government to do stuff on our behalf. Just tell them to live up to their side of the treaties and things will be fine. Remove all canadian laws so we can reassert out own. There is nothing special about that, other than we don't need to keep in-fighting amongst Canadians.

River: "You have done no such thing. Your responses have basically been: natives are entitled to special (race-based) benefits because some of their ancestors signed treaties which requires the gov't to provide these benefits to their ancestors in perpetuity. That is not a refutation - it is simply a claim that apartheid is perfectly justified if there are some dubious historical documents that say apartheid is ok" You can whine all you want, but all I'm doing is explaining Canadian law to you. You might not like it, as I don't, but it is fact, and it is based on who was here first to extinguish land rights. Just because the first people here happened to be Natives is sheer fate. As I've also said (and which you clearly forget because it screws you up), I don't believe our shared government looks to give people money just based on their physical appearance. I think they give out money to erase interests and make a free and clear legal path for themselves. When you say race-based, you are forgetting that the "race" you whine about was here and had title to Canada. you make only half an argument, and I use this to my advantage.

It's too bad they won't go through a traditional Aboriginal court (especially out in Ontario). They'd be killed for trespassing on someone else's grounds, and the problem would be solved. In fact, their own family would have to execute them. The same went for wife-beaters and murderers. I'd give 'em a chance though, and make them swim Burrard Inlet without a PFD. If they made it across, then they are free.

Taxpayer Criblet: I agree, and this thread is starting to degenerate into name calling. Gee, i didn't see you saying this in the first ten pages, when people were gladly rhyming off myth after innuendo about Natives? Where were you then, taxpayer? I'll tell you. you didn't care...hell no, you were an active participant in making anti-Native statements, but as soon as a Native got on this site and started myth-busting, NOW there is a problem with the thread degenerating. That is also racist, but you cry whenever I point that out, so sorry for hurting your taxpaying feelings. As soon as someone starts throwing around the race card and calling names, then its over. Oh...you mean "Well these treaty benefits are all race-based", or "they only get their monthly welfare because of their race" or any of the other crap you and your buddies have dragged up. Give me a break. Since I've been here, I'VE been called lazy, a welfare bum, a racist and a host of other names. What is the worst I've said? Caledonians are drunks? Where is the racism in that? No point in discussing anything when that starts. Actually, why not call a spade a spade? Just admit that I've got you non-plussed by my superior knowledge of this subject area, and have shown you up at every instance through superior intellect. Nothing wrong with that. You'd be in great company, I'm sure. You can even call me boastful....that would be the truth. Mind you,, the basis of this whole thing is the race card when you think about; it is simply about privileges and apartheid given to a group of people based on race and ancestry which would not be tolerated in any other situation. See what I mean? You've made the above point again and again, I've skillfully rebuked it again and again, but you come back and hold to the same myth. You wouldn't be from Alberta, would you? They seem to have the exact same problem expressing coherent thought too. All the arguing in the world over treaties and who's the biggest racist, natives or the white guys doesn't change that fact. Naaa. I'm just arguing that you are wrong. simple as that. If you changed your tack, then I'd do likewise, but you don't, so I won't. That rhymed!

Rene: Since you claim to be such an authority, how about your point the specific legal document you think definitively grants Natives such benefits as a trade for land. They are all in the Indian Act and Constitution Act amendments. Some of the negotiations points are in the National archives too. In particular, now that you've skimmed the Robinson-Huron Treaty, you'll note that Robinson made a provision that if ever the number of "Indians" reaches less than 2000 or so in the treaty area, then the government reserves the right to take back land apportionate to the number of "disappeared" Indians. You won't see the passage in the treaty where the government agreed that if the number increased, then the land would increase as well. This did indeed happen in the late 1990's when Nippissing First Nation received more land north of highway 17, between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay. I remember the surprise on many peoples faces because they didn't know that that was an agreed item, but nippissing is good at keeping up on the provisos. Additionally, you'll be surprised to know that Robinson also promised the Native signatories that towns like Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie were only temporary settlements, and that as soon as the minig is complete, then the land will revert to Native use. You see, there was also an expectation on the Crown's part that no white people would ever live in such a hostile environment such as the Canadian Shield, so they made this promise to the Natives. however, that is obviously not the case now since north Bay, Timmins, Kapuskasing etc have all sprung up too, be we can negotiate that fall out later. "Better still quote the excerpt on this forum for all to see. But you won't will you? Why? Because such a document or excerpt does not exist" As I said, they are not in one single document in one place, but the best place to list all the various benefits are the amendments, and as you've noteed, there are many, many documents there...so feel free to begin your research.

Seabee: "I admire the way you enlighten this forum. Keep up the very good work" Thank you for the compliment. It is greatly appreciated. I know from reading many of the users here that this thread has been a non-ending bashing of Native people with all the usual tripe about welfare, laziness and urban myth after urban myth. To me, the funny part is that the moment someone comes on here and challenges these myths and ideas, that person is quickly villified. I'm left with a bunch of people whose only argument is that "you're wrong", with not a hred of proof to support their view. We have people on this site who I've proved all manner of links to all kinds of documentation that supports what I say, and the choose not to read it but imply that I'm still wrong. We even have cases where people on here are arguing with me from two contrary standpoints! In essence, they both think I'm wrong, but they are citing evidence that contradicts what the other says. That is hilarious. It truly shows the depth of stupidity people sink to when they truly have no clue as to what they are talking about, but cling to urban myth as gospel. If folks approached this issue in a questioning manner instead of an accusatorial one, I'd play that game, but when poster after poster infers that I'm lazy, or any of my family is lazy, or that we are incapable of looking after our selves and our businesses, then there will be a series of verbal head-slaps. Other than that, this cite certainly doesn't make Occidentals look too good, eh? FYI: I received a couple of calls from Six Nations wondering if I'll be down this weekend. Caledonians have been telling people at the roadblock that they invited the KKK to rally at the roadblock on friday or Saturday night. I think its rumour, but then again, I never expected people to yell racial epithets at Native people because they are upset by a blockade. I don't begrudge people being upset, but to take it to the extreme they did at Caledonia only shows that liquor and white people don't mix that well.