Rue

Sorry for the late reply. Right on both!

"The doctrine of laches is a well established legal principal that requires people who are wronged to seek a remedy in the courts within a reasonable period of time.".... "The courts would likely rule that 150 years is definitely too long for anyone other than aboriginals. However, our court system the court usually does not apply the doctrine to cases involving aboriginal claims. A clear double standard." The above comment is silly. The reason why the doctrine of laches does not apply to aboriginal claims is precisely because they are continuous and uniterupte-it has nothing to do with double standards or special treatment for aboriginals it has to do with the nature of the fact that rights to aboriginal land claims are NOT rights to private property but rights conveyed in a different manner and based on a different time line. "The 1841 sale required SN people to move to the area near their current reserve. The leaders at the time consented to this move. This implies the 1841 sale was accepted as a legitimate translation. If it was not they should have protested at that time. That is why the doctrine of laches should apply in this case." The above is not true at all. Can we once and for all understand the basis for the current land claim and nto selectively edit out those historic facts which don't conform to this preconceived and absurd notion that if aboriginals ask for their rights to be respected and honoured that makes them racist. Back in 1874, with the Haldimand Deed, The British Crown gave land rights as a “reward” to the Six Nations for their military service, and support of the Crown during the American Revolutionary wars. It is somewhat ironic in that the British were arrogant enough to feel the land they were giving to the aboriginals like a cookie to a dog for wagging its tail, was never their land to start with. The point is when people discuss aboriginal land claims they start with the racist assumption that the land belonged to the Crown to start with. Not withstanding the above, if we start off with the racist assumption it was oirginally crown land, even using this racist assumption, it was still given to the aboriginals. In fact a tract of land 6 miles from either side of the Grand River, from its source to its termination at Lake Erie was what was given to the 6 Nations. The actual land description was and I quote; “upon the Banks of the River commonly called Ours [Ouse] or Grand River. running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that Purpose Six Miles deep from each Side of the River beginning at Lake Erie, & extending in that Proportion to the Head of the said River, which them & their Posterity are to enjoy for ever."[1] This tract of land is approx. 385,000 hectares (3800 km²).” Now you know the lovely expression “Indian Giver” well in this case use the word “Caucasian-Giver” because in 1792, the British reduced the size of the land grant to 1,110 km² or 111,000 hectares. The British were good at that sort of thing-offering you something and then taking part or all of it back. It is also true in 1796, the 6 Nations allowed their Chief at the time, Joseph Brant to sell off some of the land. Then it was in 1825, the Crown decided to approach the Six Nations because they wanted to develop what was then called Plank Road and today is Highway 6. At that time, the 6 Nations consented to leasing ahalf a mile of land on each side for the road. This was a lease. That meant title to ownership of this land never was never given by the nations to the Crown. In 1840 the government recommended that a reserve of 8,000 hectares be established on the south side of the Grand River and the rest sold or leased and on January 18, 1841, if you believe the Crown’s version of events, the 6 Nations simply agreed to surrender for sale all the lands outside those set aside for a reserve, based on an understanding the government would sell the land and invest the money for them. What makes this version by the Crown absolutely dishonest is the fact that on both Feb. 4, 1841 and July 7, 1841 in fact the 6 nations are on public record as having petitioned against the surrender of the land and made it clear they would never have agreed to anything other then a lease. It is also a public record and fact that in 1843, the 6 Naions petitioned the Crown stating they needed 22,000-hectares of land for a reserve and wanted to keep and lease a tier of lots on each side of Plank Road (Highway 6) as well as sother tracts of land in the Haldimand area. It is also a fact in 1844 a document was signed by fourty-seven 6 Nations Chiefs that is in dispute as to whether it authorized the sale of land to build Plank Road or whether it only allowed a lease. It is absurd to think after the 6 Nations continually petitioned not to surrender the land, they would suddenly for no reason, sell it. So surprise, surprise, In 1845, the Crown unilateraly sells Plank Road and its surrounding land to third parties. So get the record straight. The Crown took land it gave the 6 nations as a gift back with no explanation. Then they also decided they wanted more land so they ignore petitions by the 6 Nations stating the 6 Nations would not surrender it only lease it, and presto bango out comes a deed showing 47 of the 6 Nation Chiefs allegedly surrendering the land when the document did not say that and was clearly signed with ambiguous words that led the 6 Nations Chiefs to believe they were simply leasing not selling the land. The Crown then illegally sold land they knew did not belong to them. Read your history, The land was taken away by the Crown using disception and misrepresentation not good faith consent and negotiations. Then in 1848, the very land now in dispute was sold to George Marlot Ryckman for 57 pounds, 10 shillings. That is public record because there is a Crown deed documenting that. Next in 1850 the Crown decides to pass a proclamation redefining the reserve lands as19,000 hectares. Of course the 6 Nations agreed with that, what other choice did they have at that point? Then it is in 1924 pursuant to the Indian Act a federal statute, the federal government imposed an elected government on the reserve. We then know in 1992, Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land for a development it named Douglas Creek Estates. We then know in 1995, the Six Nations sued the federal and provincial governments over the land. We also know in 2005 the subdivision plan for Douglas Creek Estates was registered with title to the property guaranteed by the province of Ontario. So if we appreciate facts and not fantasy or fiction, we then know the 6 Nation Claims dispute has been continuous, never interupted and in fact the cause of action for its 1995 claim relates to an incident in 1992 placing it well within the appropriate time limits for suing even if you applied the doctrine of laches which does not apply to aboriginal claims because its based on the assumption the land title was legitimately conveyed in the first place which is never the case with aboriginal claims. This continuous prattle that aboriginals are racist because they want their legal rights honoured is patently nonsensical. Aboriginals did not make the racist assumption that land in Canada belonged to a foreign monarch, Caucasians from Britain did. That is the racist assumption. But of course for some of us Caucasians admitting we live in a legal system based on fiction is hard. Admitting our legal system is based on illegal theft of land to start with, aint easy for some of us to grasp. Excuse me if I understand why aboriginals laugh at me when I keep mentioning the concept crown land. Everytime I go home I think, golly gee wiz I get to say I own a home because I work for a bank and of course once that bank sucks me dry I get to say the house is mind provided I keep in mind the land it is on belongs to Prince Willy.

"Realistically, I think Israel could hold Jerusalem de facto with little objection from anyone, if they were willing to acknowledge/accept that they thereby hold a trust for all humanity (and behave accordingly, of course)." Of course this advise coming from someone in the position to lecture others on what is humane and moral. How Christian of you. Got news for you. If you bothered to look at how the Muslims administered Jerusalem prior to Israel taking control of East Jerusalem...if you bothered to find out what the Muslims did to BOTH Jewish adn Christian property and artifacts prior to Israel coming in in 1967, you wouldn't write such stupid things. The Muslim world demonstrated a complete and utter lack of respect. They urinated and defecated on Jewish sites. They destroyed and defaced Jewish sites and stole and sold priceless Jewish artificacts. Since Israel has administered the East side of Jerusalem it has protected not jsut Jewish but Muslim and Christian sites, something you are completely ignorant of because you have no clue what is going on in Jerusalem but shoot off at the mouth like you are an expert. Get your self-righteous ass to Jerusalem and see with your own eyes what is being administered and by who. Israel already administers Christian and Muslim sites in a trust run by an inter-faith council. But of course why confuse reality with your lectures to Israel.

"And the UN's decision was based on promises made by the Brits. In all cases, the land was never Britain's or the UNs to divvy up." ABSOLUTE DRIVEL. The UN's mandate came from the Leage of Nations mandate. The League of Nations Mandate was NEVER AT ANY TIME created or based on a British promise. This is typical of the Israeli bashers. You spew out alleged incorrect completely untrue statements as historic facts. Go back and read and learn where the mandate from the League of Nations originated. NOTHING AT ALL to do with Britain. In fact what you are twisting and misunderstanding is that Britain LIED to the Leage of Nations and stated that in return for being assigned by the League of Nations to administer the Middle East, it would uphold the League's NOT Britain's mandate to create a state of Israel. While Britain was lying to the League claiming it would fulfill this mandate at the same time it was advising its Arab supporters not to worry they would never allow a Jeiwsh state. That is precisely why Britain illegally seized 80% of Palestine and created Jordan out of it. They thought that would preempt the State of Israel from being able to be created. "Whatever. Go back and re-read this thread from WestViking's post on. It's pretty clear that what I'm against is the claim that the the Jews have more of a claim to the land than anyone else. " The above is a pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you are really getting at. Jews as you now like to refer to us all when discussing Israel's mandate (typical of Israel bashers, they must bring in the entire Jwish people and not just Israelis) who believe in Zionism NEVER AT ANY TIME contended or claim that they have more of a claim to land then anyone else. All Israel and the Jews who live in Israel have ever wanted is some of the land. Think about your statement. 80% of Palestine was stolen and seized by the British illegally and turned into Jordan. So how does asking for the other 20% constitute making a claim based on believing you have more of a claim then anyone else. Think before you write. Israel is not even 100% of the remaining 20% of Palestine. More to the point, and a point you again selectively ignore-The Muslim world controls and claims right to the vast majority of the Middle East. This idiocy that Jews are not allowed their own country out of a tiny sliver of it is assinine. Its predicated on your ignorance of Judaism. You bash Judaism and suggest it says something it never did, that it has a better claim to Israel. Read the Jewish religion before you make such untrue statements. The Jewish concept of a convenant from God to certain land does NOT include ALL of the Middle East. I will also say this one last time no doubt to someone who doesn't think twice about the absurdity of Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity or the precepts as to how the Ukraine was created. Teh Jewish belief in having a special responsibility to God to live in Israel is no mroe absurd then any other religion's concepts. You in fact are anti-semitic if you continue to point out Judaism's beliefs are absurd but remain silent as you do about the Muslim belief they own all the land and non Muslims can not. never have you acknowledged how Islam works and how it will not recognize any non Muslim's right to own land or run their own givernment. For that precise reason you have no credibility. Instead you try pretend you are being even handed in this debate. You are not and your proetsts of innocence make me puke. Enough already. If you have any credibility spit it out once and for all-BOTH Jews and Muslims have religions whose values or beliefs if we are to resolve this issue must be treated equally. You are not. Your arguement is to say Judaism is absurd adn that any Jewish claims to self-determination are vased in religious absurdity but stay silent about the fact that the Muslim concept behind its view of statehood and religion and the very reason many Muslims will not accept a Jewish state is based on their religious views. More to the point I take no one of Christian ancestry seriously when they call Judaism absurd until they acknowl4edge the blood on the hands of their Christian culture in regards to Jews which forced them to need a state AND until people like you state that no state anywhere in the world should be based on religion in which case every single state in the world, every Muslim state, every Christian state, according to you and your even handed approach, must dismantle because their constitutions are based on absurdities and the last time I looked using your arguement anyone who claims the right to self-determination is wrong so we should have no nations at all.

It's the ultimate in ethnocentrism to think that we'd recognize inteligent aliens when they arrived. Really, all evolution supporters should believe in some form of extraterrestial life, there are likely trazillions of planets out there like Earthish. Are they visiting us? I don't think we'd ever know. Exactly. I think it would be just plain dumb to think we are the only planet out there with life. Its no different then when the majority of the planet felt the universe centered around the planet earth and did not realize it was just one of a zillion planets. Now whether aliens have visited or have been visiting and experimenting on us, etc., who knows. I find reading UFO literature fun but I find much of it unstable or subjective speculation based on paranoid schitzophrenia or manic episodes or perhaps induced from brain tumours...then again if you read and read there are some compelling articles and corroborated credible accounts and information now released from the military that anyoen can read and decide for themselves about. I personally would not be suprised if aliens observe us and would treat us the way we do animals when we go in the wild and capture and tag them. I am sure they might be doing the same with us. I also suspect more and more that Stephane Dion is an android.

"Laws don't have to be broken - they can be changed." Of course I agree with the above. "We live in a democracy which means 50%+1 of the voters can strip all of the aboriginal rights provisions out of the constitution if they wanted to." With due respect you are legally wrong. You can't delete aboriginal legal rights with a 50% + 1 vote, more to the point all provincial governments, the federal government, our Supreme Court and the legal community in general would not allow it. Regardless of what side of the debate lawyers may be on, we all agree that if we ignore legitimate aboriginal rights, we lose any credibility to uphold any other laws. "Simplying placing a limit on liabilities for past injustices is sufficient." I don't think its simple, but your point about the legal system having a limit to what it can accommodate is logical. Can't argue with logic. Ultimately the question the legal system will have to address and the aboriginal leaders and everyone else is very well aware if is what are reasonable limits to what can be compensated. The question is what is a reasonable limit. I think you relaly do need to read some leading aboriginal leaders and lawyers to understand they are well aware of the limits and with due respect in the negotiation positions I have seen presented in many claims, they have been quite reasonable-a lot more reasonable then I would be if I was them. "You could make the moral case for a symbolic redress of past wrongs that does not impose undue hardship on people who were not responsible for the wrong." Again we may be on opposite sides of the debate but I agree with the above comment and quite frankly I think most aboriginals do. "However, demanding $100 billion in compensation or land equivalent goes way beyond a symbolic redress. It is really simply greed. " Well I think the number you have come up with is inaccurate to say the least and something some angry white guys came up with to simplify the aboriginal position to make it easy for them to understand and deal with in a black and white bad versus good WWE wrestling match way. Here is the point-any number tossed about in negotiations is just a number. Those of us who negotiate know a number is not a fixed point -its fluid and its subject to change during negotiation. Come on you have played poker enough times to know that. In the end and there will be an end to this, the number of points agreed upon will not be the above number which was deliberately picked to inflame and make aboriginals look unreasonable. Let me tell you what my friends who are lawyers negotiating on behalf of the feds say-aboriginals aint stupid and that is precisely the issue-they aint stupid-this attempt to demonize them or make them sound unreasonable may resonate on this post with people with preconceived notions that aboriginals are not entitled to anything-but in the real world people know the aboriginal legal arguements are based on solid precedent and are not pie in the sky. This doomsday scenario that they want to destroy Canada and put you in the poorhouse-come on get a grip.

But I definitely agree with you, historical ancestory claims to land are absurd. Claiming that the creation of Israel as such though, is also a little absurd. This coming from someone who has lived and taken it for granted that his country is b ased on Christianity and the concept that Mary is a virgin, Jesus was God. Yah I love it when Christians lecture Jews on being absurd. What si absurd is you thinking you are in the position to call anyone absurd given what your ancestors did. Oh but I know-you don't want to know about what Christians did to Jews for 2,500 years. That wouldn't fit into your quaint simple world of absurd Jews wanting to be free of you and your self-righteousness.

For you to ask the first question suggests you have absolutely no knowledge of European history to ask such a question. Your second comment is a subjective remark that reflects your complete ignorance as to international law and historic land right claims not to mention a sweeping simplistic generalization of a complex legal issue that would depend very much on each fact situation . Your thid comment suprise, suprise is wrong and reflects you have no idea what you are talking about. Do me a favour, reading anti-Israel articles on the web-site doesn't make you an authority. Try read something outside your comfort zone and come back when you have something meaningful to say. Your comments can be summed up quite simply: Israel bad, Israel very bad. Gosh what an original position.

"Here are some true facts about Israel Palestine." Try get this straight, you do not have a monopoly on truth nor will I put up with you stereotyping me and lumping me and all alleged Zionists in one category because we don't tell you what you want to hear. Grow up. The fact that you find articles you agree with because they conform to your preconceived ideas does not make you an authority or hold a monopoly on truth. In fact the articles you cut and paste are unoriginal and intellectually void as theyc ontain no objective data or facts just subjective remarks. Nothing you have reproduced is even remotely original or has anything factual to present to add any insight or new angle to the conflict but most of it repeats the same old Israel bad and evil mantra. You simply quote subjective opinions you like. Wake up. The world does not begin and end with your opinions or those people you agree with. One other thing from this Jew-I really resent it when you lecture me and suggest because there are Jews who are "antiZionist" that this automatically means they are right since they are Jewish. That is bigoted. Figore out why it is. I will give you a hint. You are trying to use people's "Jewish" identity in a blanket, generalization to automatically infer credibility to an arguement and in reverse infer no credibility if they are pro-Israel. Either way your blanket stereotyping and generalizations of Jews is idiotic and I will not be patronized or stereotyped by you.

I blame Paris Hilton.

The concept that one "wins" a war is a misnomer. Even those who supposedly are on the winning side suffer loss and don't really win. Just ask Britain after World War Two. That said, there is no war in Afghanistan. War in the conventional sense does not exist. What we have is a police action. The NATO forces are being used as a political police or security force. By its very nature the police action can not "win" anything. At best it can achieve a stalemate until the feuding factions sit and agree on something. This notion that you defeat terrorists or the bad guy misses the point. I don't think anyone in the Canadian military is so stupid as to believe they are in Afghanistan to "win". I think they know they are there to try maintain a status quo until civilians figure a way to create order from the chaos. Now in terms of military strategy, no conventional armies can't "win" against guerilla armies or terrorists-at best they can contain their activities to a place and time, both temporary in nature.

"Suppose their claims are ruled invalid by the courts? " Their claims have already been ruled valid. The only issue is what kind of compensation not whether they will be entitled to compensation. Again it would help if someone bothered to make an effort to read the law and the legal issues that are actually in dispute.

There is not one thing in the article you presented to start this post that is even remotely close to describing the legal issues in dispute. Pretending the law does not exist will not change anything.

He's turning out to be a brittle, rigid, inflexible, humourless, egg-head. He seems to have managed to alienate the West and Quebec not to mention the Ontario Liberal machine with his stand on coal burning. I think he really believes he is special on the environment and that will carry him votes. I think in this country, the environment in reality takes a back seat to jobs and tax cuts the two little carrots Stevie Harper knows how to dangle. Right now I would be suprised if Harper couldn't win a majority vote in an election.

This from the same self righteous poster who calls others intolerant when they question native entitlements.... Oop heaven forbid we speak tongue in cheek to satarize this idiot line of posts. The point remains they can sing or say what they want and what people think about them is subjective and if youd on't like them don't listen to their music. It is that simple. Oh by the way Riverwind if you are chubby I forgive you. I was not serious. I could care less what Nalie Maines looks like. I just like their music.

I post everything as if it is connected to the bankers because it is. Everything you see on TV, everything they inject you with at doctors office, learn at school, most of your beliefs, all the wars, every polician that gets elected, when you die, how our society works ie: culture of corruption is all linked to the banks. Ours is one of the most controlled societies that has ever existed and thats why China wanted a TV set in every home by 2001. Its easier to control by TV than with guns and threats. Lawyers are just "Judas Goats" or "House Slaves" in this sytem. here we go again with the usual Lyndon Larouche diatribes about banks and lawyers. Who next?

He is NOT paid. He does it because its free advertising for himself + he believes in what he is saying. Its both.

I would never simply insert an article but I am getting so sick and tired of the deliberate legal misrepresentations denying the aboriginal legal rights to the land claims I don't think I have the energy to constantly repeat the same things over and over to the same people who write in completing twisting the true legal issues. Please read this article and I hope this puts this latest nonsense to rest: "Land Claims and The Six Nations in Caledonia Ontario By Graham Darling, University of Alberta LL.B. Land Claim To begin a recount of the recent events plaguing Caledonia, Ontario, it is helpful to start with some basic definitions. “A land claim is a formal statement submitted to the federal and/or provincial government in which an Aboriginal community most often asserts that the Crown has not lived up to its commitments or obligations with respect to Aboriginal or treaty rights pertaining to land."[1] There are two types of claims that are referred to as land claims; comprehensive and specific claims. Comprehensive claims arise where aboriginal land claims and aboriginal rights have not been covered by a treaty or other legal means.[2] “Comprehensive claims deal with the unfinished business of treaty making in Canada.” [3] A Specific claim is a grievance that relates to an existing treaty or government obligation.[4] Twenty modern treaties have been negotiated in Canada since 1973.[5] Specific claims arise when First Nations people believe the government has not held up its end of the bargain. More than 460 specific claims have been concluded across Canada.[6] The Federal Government’s Constitutional Powers Concerning Aboriginals The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established that treaty-making with Aboriginal peoples was the sole responsibility of the Crown. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867,[7] grants the federal government legislative power over “Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.”[8] This legislative power however, does not give the government an automatic right over the “lands reserved for Indians”.[9] Instead, there is a complex surrender system. Aboriginal peoples can only surrender their land to the federal Crown (not the provincial Crown or anyone else) but upon surrender full title of the land passes to the provincial government. However, this rule has been altered through different agreements. In the prairie provinces, reserve lands were retained as federal lands when the other public lands were transferred to the provinces. Aside from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (which has no reserves), provincial / federal agreements grant the federal government the right to manage, sell, and lease surrendered reserve lands. [10] This means that the federal government plays an important role when Aboriginal lands are surrendered. The Provincial Government’s Constitutional Powers Concerning Aboriginals “The general rule is that provincial laws apply to Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.”[11] In other words, as long as the province has the constitutional authority to pass the law, the province can make the law “applicable to Indians and on Indian reserves”. Because the federal government has the explicit power to pass laws concerning Aboriginal peoples, the provincial authority is usually limited to laws that apply generally to everyone in the province. If the provincial law appears to apply specifically to Aboriginal peoples or to limit Aboriginal rights, the province may be stepping on the federal government’s toes and the law may be challenged as outside of the province’s constitutional powers. Overview of the Events in Caledonia Ontario Henco Industries acquired a plot of land in Caledonia Ontario in 1992 with the intention of building a housing subdivision. In 1995, the Six Nations Confederacy filed a lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments asserting a historical land claim that includes the proposed development.[13] The land claim goes back to 1784 when the British Crown rewarded the Six Nations for its loyalty during the American Revolution by allowing them to “take possession of and settle” 385,000 hectares of land.[14] The land formed a strip almost 20 kilometers wide running alongside the Grand River. [15] The original grant was reduced in 1792 to 111,000 hectares and in subsequent years additional portions of the land were sold, surrendered, or taken away. The issue is figuring out what part of the land grant was properly surrendered by the Six Nations to the Crown for sale or lease, what portion was retained, and what portion was taken without the proper consent of the Six Nations Confederacy. Henco industries began constructing homes on the land but on February 28, 2006, a group of Six Nations protesters moved onto the construction site and set up tents, a teepee, and a wooden building.[16] Despite an injunction ordering protesters off the site and a police raid conducted on April 20, 2006, Six Nations protesters remained on the site and erected barricades. Since the first protesters set up camp, there have been counter protests by Caledonian residents, more barricades built, barricades removed, and acts of violence and vandalism. QUOTE: The Six Nations want “meaningful negotiations to begin with the Department of Indian affairs” and want a hold put on development until their outstanding land claim is resolved.[17]END QUOTE Caledonia residents who do not support the Six Nations cause want to see order and stability in their town and are frustrated that the police and government are not resolving the dispute quickly.[18] The Dispute in Caledonia: Provincial or Federal Responsibility With most land transactions, the federal government does not have to be involved. Section 91(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the Province the power to legislate concerning property and civil rights within the province. This makes land transfers primarily a provincial concern. But a land claim that involves Aboriginal peoples or lands can engage both the provincial constitutional powers over property and the federal constitutional powers concerning Aboriginal people. In other words, both levels of government may potentially become involved. When Henco industries registered the subdivision plan in July 2005, the province of Ontario guaranteed title to the property.[19] In April, Henco stated that they wanted to continue to build on the site and asserted that they "have a provincial guarantee of the title of ownership."[20] The provincial government is also responsible for policing within the province.[21] In the case of the dispute in Caledonia, policing the town and keeping the peace is a provincial concern. In April 2006, a spokesperson for the Minister of Indian Affairs of Canada was quoted as saying that the Six Nations dispute “is not a land claims matter” and that the blockade “has nothing to do with the federal government.”[22] A March 24 press release from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada stated that Professor Michael Coyle will “undertake a fact-finding initiative related to the ongoing situation involving members of the Six Nations of the Grand River near Caledonia, Ontario.”[23] The press was able to read the confidential report and Mr. Coyle was cited as saying that the provincial and federal governments need to cooperate: “Each takes the position that it is confident that if the Crown is liable for wrongdoing in relation to Six Nations' land claims, it is the other government that is legally responsible.” And “It is difficult to see how the Crown will be able to reach a settlement of Six Nations' land claims unless Canada and Ontario can agree on a reasonable sharing between them.”[24] On April 30, Former Ontario Premier David Peterson was appointed to assist with resolving the conflict. Negotiations between the provincial and federal governments and the Six Nations have been ongoing. On June 16, the Ontario government purchased the land from the developers to hold in trust until the dispute is resolved.[25] Though both the provincial and federal governments have been negotiating, Ontario Superior Court Justice David Marshall was not happy with the lack of action. On June 1, Justice Marshall said he would hold a case conference and compel the federal government to become involved in the dispute.[26] Following the issuance of orders demanding the removal of all protesters and barricades, Justice Marshall ordered that “the parties involved — including the provincial police, the attorney general of Ontario, First Nations leaders and developers” appear for a special court session to explain why his court orders were not being followed.[27] On June 29, the provincial and federal governments as well as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy traditional government were reported to have resumed negotiating, but Justice Marshall was left wondering why the protesters had not been removed as he ordered.[28] The negotiations were expected to continue throughout the summer. [29] However, on August 8 Justice Marshall controversially ordered that all negotiations be suspended until the protesters ceased occupation of the construction site and that police should charge the Six Nations protesters for not complying with his earlier court injunction ordering them off the disputed land.[30] The Ontario government is appealing Justice Marshall’s decision. On August 25, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a stay on the injunction ordering the protesters off the land until hearing of the appeal, and allowed the negotiations to continue.[31] Summary and Conclusions As with most land claims, the Six Nations land dispute in Caledonia involves complex questions. Attempting to figure out what portion of the original land grant was surrendered or reclaimed by the Crown will involve looking at events over a century old. There are also questions of whether the Six Nations willingly transferred the land, whether the land was transferred by Six Nations leaders with authority to do so, and whether the proper procedures were followed. Moreover, if the land was properly transferred, did the Crown uphold its end of the bargain and discharge all of its obligations? These complex questions may explain the reluctance of government officials to get involved. What is clear is that the disputed land was at one time granted to the Six Nations and currently, someone else holds title. Further negotiations between the affected parties (including the provincial and federal governments) are necessary to begin unraveling this complicated issue." It is absolutely intellectually dishonest to get on this post and slander the 6 Nations and suggest they have no legal claim.

The point was and remains Michael Coren by stating he personally finds homo-sexuality to "not be normal" or "not be natural" is expressing his subjective opinion. Its not based on anything objective, just his personal bias. I find a lot of things to be abnormal or not natural and yet other people would find those things quite natural or normal. For example I find Toronto Maple Leaf fans not normal or natural. So? Gays are gay because its normal and natural for them. They didn't ask to be that way. It is absolutely idiotic to suggest it isn't natural when every life form that reproduces has homo-sexual behaviour. Its bviouskly a population control measure naturally placed in life. I could care less what Michael Coren thinks. More to the point the man is bald, has an earing, has a lisp, speaks with a very feminine pronunciation and often dresses like a stereotype gay man with his jeans too tight and a pathetic ill-fitting leather jacket. For all I know Michael Coren is gay and can't deal with his latent tendencies so he constantly harps about it being abnormal because he can't harmonize his own gay tendencies with being Christian. You know its b.s. to say in one breath you find homo-sexuality abnormal then in the next breath say you mean no harm to gays. That's a nice quaint way of trying to intellectualize bigotry. Get over it. If you don't like gays don't watch and stay away from them and and please I got news for you Leafs fans Mats Sundin is gay. He plays hockey the way I would expect Manny Sandhu to. Oops was that politically correct? Come on lighten up.

+ O.k. once again we have the disciple of Lyndon Larouche enlighten us. Get it straight. The Entity Known as Lucifer does not appear in MOST versions of the Bible. In fact the name Lucifer only is mentioend once and that is in the King James version of the Bile in Isaiah 14:12, whereby the King of Babylon was described as "Son of the Morning" which is Lucifer in Latin which was translated from the Hebrew term "Helel ben Shahar," which literally means "Praise! Son of the Dawn"). Those of us who do not follow Lyndon Larouche know that Lucifer was original the Latin term for the planet Venus, also known as the morning star and there has never been a direct link in the Bible between the entity known as "Satan" and the entity known as "Lucifer " which you now use inter-changeably. Satan never was and is not Lucifer. This a bullshit myth created by Augustine after translating the above term from Hebrew to Latin, no more, no less. During Augustine's time it was decided to come up with the bull shit story of the war in heaven. There is no mention of this bull shit story in any Hebrew document. Luciferianism if we are to get it right is a philosophy that believes the embodiment of knowledge was presented through Lucifer who is seen as the "Light of Conscious Evolution". Lucifer is seen as a "Light Bearer" or the vessel or carrier of the knowledge. This Light is not evil, its simply a symbol for the illumination of the consciousness in humans. Luciferianism in this sense is simply seen as a way to find Self-Attainment or mroe developed conscience. Lucifer is merely the synethesis of two opposing views to come up with a new understanding. Its the balancing of conflict to come up with an understanding. Most Luciferians do not worship Satan or for that matter any "God" , they are merely trying to pursue a path of awareness. It is absolute bull crap to suggest Lucigerians are Satan worshippers and kidnap children, etc. It is the kind of ignorant generalization that comes about because of someone repeating what he read without finding out for himself what it is he is slandering.

You without a doubt have sunk to an intellectual low. read back what you wrote. You are engaged in justifying terrorism. Even if what you said is true which it is not, its is intellectuallypathetic to trot out the two wrongs make a right arguement or the equally as inane Israel is evi lso deserves to be terrorized arguement. These arguements are tiresome, unoriginal and absolutely idiotic in simplicity. Terrrorism is inexcusable period no matter who does it and no matter what the reason. Its people like you that make me angry more so then terrorists because if these terrorists attacked you-you would be the first whininga nd demanding restitution-I am not sure which is worse your self-righteousness or your blatant hippocracy. As for your selective exercise of trying to paint this to be the usual Israel bad Palestine good scenario, if that is all you have to contribute move on. We have enough idiots in this world trying to apologize for terrorists. Also get soemthing else crystal clear. Israel targets the assassination of terrorists don't you dare infer with intellectual dishonesty as you have that Israel is targetting innocent civilians. The difference between Israel and Hamas is Israel does not have a charter calling for the killing of all Palestinians nor does it broadcast on its tv and radio nightly, shows calling for killing of Muslims world wide let alone wiping out all Palestinians. More to the point before you make subejctive comments about heavy handed excursions and the usual stale Israel is evil b.s. get it through your selective head-it takes two to tango-Israel would not be doing what it does if it did not have to fight terrorism. You want to criticize Israel, then criticize Hamas and all the other terror groups as well and put this in proper context.

"Catch Me has asked to point out what you stated above is wrong. No. 2; Israel was not drawn on a map and given to Jews. No.3; the creation of Israel came about after a complex series of interactions and not as you stated by any means-the easiest way to summarize it is to point out the League of Nations had a mandate to create a nation for Jews in Palestine an area that is now Israel, Jrodan and Lebanon-the League of Nations mandate did not define specific borders-in fact after World War Two, Jewish leaders had reached an agreement with Arab Leaders to create a country in Palestine and form an alliance with the Arabs to help them build a nation-the Jewish nation probably would have been around where Israel is now-the French aborted and deliberately interfered and destroyed this deal seizing and creating land to make Syria and Lebanon-the British deliberately lied to the League of Nations and was given the responsibility to set up a Jewish state but unilaterally and illegally just as France illegally and unilaterally set up Lebanon and Syria, created Jordan and Iraq creating puppet monarchies to pay back the predecessors of the Saudi Royal family for supporting them during World War One against the Turks-the British lied to the League of Nations and said it woudl create a Jewish State while at the same time documents now publically available show the British never had any intention of allowing a Jewish state and would at all costs prevent one from being created-Jordan is in fact a Palestinian state created on 75% of Palestine with a majority of Palestinians within its borders-had Britain not violated the Leage of Nations mandate and had France not deliberately prevented the Arab-Jewish alliance things would have been far different-the Israel border after 1948 came about because the British would not honour the Leage of Nations Mandate then inherited by the UN and the Arab League of Nations also violated the UN mandate and would not recognize a Jewish state and the Arab League decided to unilaterally invade what was left of Palestine thinking it could kill the remaining Jews and not have to worry about a Jewish state-the 1949 Israeli border came about because the Jews had no choice but to fight or die-many had escaped the holocaust and had nowhere to go to-in the next 5 years 700,000 Jews were deported from all the Arab nations and their property illegally stolen making it impossible for those Jews to live anywhere but in Israel-another 200,000 Jews were expelled from the Middle East and had to go to Europe or the US or Canada. 4. Your description of Lebanon is incorrect. Lebanon is an artificial state created by the French. It has 3 groups of people, Sunni Muslim, Shiite Muslim and Christian Maronites. It also has Druze. The Shiite community led by Hezxbollah is funded by Iran-has a charter calling for the destruction of Israel and runs regular daily radio and t.v. broadcasts calling for the mass murder of Jews and depicts Jews as evil and needing to be wiped out. Teh Hezbollah want an Iranian syyle theocracy and not only hate Israel but do not get along with the Christians or Sunnis. It is a disasterous nation because it pitted three people against one another. That is what colonialists do. They create artificial borders and place feuding populations together so they can then rule by divide and conquer and justify their presence as needed to keep the savages from killing one another. Lebanon was the Switzerland of the Middle East before a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and Christians destroyed it. Youa re utterly wrong when you suggest Israel has tried to take Lebanon. That is b.s. Israel's sole concern has been trying to prevent Hezbollah from using Lebanon as a base to attack it. Hezbollah invaded Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers which set of the last war. The two Israeli soldiers kidnapped were held hostage to try force an exchange to release Samir Kuntar. Samir Kuntar is a Hezbollah terrorist who crossed into Israel with 8 other guerillas. he kidnapped an Israeli man and his young boy. They tortured the two including raping them, defecating on them, and then butchering them slowly. when Kuntar's men came upon this man, the man had only hiding space for his wife and their young daughter and so had to sacrifice himself and his son. His wife hid in a small crawl space with ehr daughter and had to cover her daughter's mouth to prevent her from screaming-by so doing she suffocated her daughter to death. This Mr. Kuntar is descrived by hezbollah as a hero who needs to be freed. So before you shoot off at the mouth about Lebanon and Israel understand the depth of Hezbollah's hatred of Jews. when Israel fought back it dealt with a terrorist unit that deliebrately placed its missile sites in apartments, hospitals and schools. Lebanon failed to disarm Hezbollah as it said it would. France under the UN said it would disarm Hezbollah but instead openly backed them. China's alleged peacekeepers sent by the UN like French troops openly sided with Hezbollah and built bridges so that weapons could be sent from Iran via Syria to South Lebanon where it was used to fire on Israel. Israel at no time did anything in Lebanon to justify Hezbollah's recent attack that precipitated the war. Hezbollah claimed it was created to throw Israel out of Lebanon. It then admitted this was bs and its real mandate is to wipe out Israel. Grow up if you think Israel will sit back and allow Hezbollah to use Lebanon as a base to wipe it out. Had the UN disarmed Hezbollah as they said they would we would nto have this problem. 5. Your comments should be directed at Iran and Syria that deliberately armed Hezbollah and use them as a proxy force to attack Israel. O.k. Catch me. It gets tiresome repeating the same thing over and over to people who have no clue about the Middle East but shoot off at the mouth.

" I don't really know what Lyndon LaRouche says about Jews. I have only listened to his stuff on economics which does seem to make a lot of sense." Selective amnesia?

"No, Oslo was a temporary fix. "Permanent status issues" (including borders) were deferred to later negotiations which never occurred." I believe subsequent talks broke down because of the impossibility of negotiating with Hamas now the legal representative for the Palestinians since its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. "My question was more to illustrate the absuridity of placing such preconditions on negotiations. Saying "the Palestinians must renounce violence" is pretty open to interpretation." I don't think anyone on the Israeli side is saying anything other then Hamas has to renounce its charter calling for the destruction of Israel. Both sides need to cool it. "Once ethno-religious claims kick in, things get silly real fast." Agreed of course. "Obviously, it's an imperfect analogy, but I can see you're a literal minded type, so I'll explain further. In order to get citizenship, I would probably have to demonstrate that I had a blood connection to a legal citizen of that country. IOW: it's not enough to make the claim soley on the basis of my ethnicity. Furthermore, there's legal provisions in place in most countries that allow for the descendants of citizens to be repatriated: but that's not what we're talking about wrt to Israel. If anything, the only thing most of the people of Israel would be entitled to by your reasoning is citizenship in their country of origin (which would mainly be in Europe)." No actually your analogy is as close a match as we can get in this discussion. The law of return that allows anyone Jewish to ask for Israeli citizenship is based on a religious notion not just a legal one but it is no more absurd then how the Muslim world does not seperate its religious identity from its state functions or how the Vatican operates its state or how many Christian states operated and still operate. " I'd be more than happy to mock any and all other religions where it's appropriate to do so." Good so join me when I see I find all religions equally as absurd and in an ideal world Jews would have never needed a nation nor Muslims nor Christians and in an ideal world all of us should live in non religious states that treat everyone as equals, but in the real world this aint happening and when it comes to the Middle East we need a practical solution to the reality that Palestinians and Israelis aint going anywhere else. Practically we need someway to defuse the terrorists which would then make the Israeli Defence force a moot point, and somehow find a way to enable a second Palestinian state (other then Jordan) to function in an economic alliance with Jordan and Israel. In an ideal solution, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine 2, Jordan, Syria. and Iraq and Saudi Arabia should have a free trade agreement but of course that will never happen. The ironic thing is if the Sunni Muslim world stopped warring with Israel, it would make an amazing economic alliance. Wishful thinking.

Oh my more words from the follower of Lyndon Larouche. We know Lyndon loves Jews and Israel. Give it a restw ill yah? Your parroting his tiresome anti-semitic buzz phrases is boring. As for your nonsensical comments about Arabs not being able to be anti-semitic since they are semitic, sit for this one. Yes Jews can be anti-semites and so can Arabs just like blacks can hate blacks and be racist and gays can hate gays and be homo-phobic. Go ask Lyndon about that. As for your Lyndon Larouche gross generalization of Zionists dominating Jewish dialogue, etc., give it a rest. The day you speak for Jews is the day I speak for Lyndon Larouche followers. Also for someone accusing others of following cults, careful, Lydon Larouche is not exactly a religious figure. Now just so we understand ourselves, Jews can not be lumped in simplistic generalized categories as you are inferring. The fact that Jews support Israel or do not support Israel is not something you can generalize. We supporters of Israel differ as to what we support and don't support with Israeli foreign policy. Try get your Larouchian brain to understand supporting Israel is not one simplistic notion and that supporters of Israel can and do criticize it. We just make sure when we talk with people like you who can only think in black and white and rights and wrongs, not to say anything too complex lest you turn it into another excuse to generalize.