Who's Doing What?

You'd better go back and read your posts on the assimulation issue your talking circles again. This is our land because it was our land. Your ancestors and all that followed came from some place else and enjoyed our generosity and hospitality. They decided they would like to stay and we as good neighbours accommodated them under several agreements. It just happens that we happen to be of a different genetic make up then you are. You're the one that is constantly using the "R" word and trying to make the vain attempt to connect everything to the "R" word. You have forever lost this argument so grow up and move on. Oh and you said the "R" word again. I don't want to assimilate your way of life. If you would behave like reasonable people you could likely achieve alot. But no, you want it all. You want it now. And you don't give a rats ass about any of the other people living in this country. You are the ones who started playing hardball. It is going to cost you all the extra liberties you enjoy. In the end every race in Canada will be treated equally. The fight you have started will end the favoritism that has been given to the natives in several areas. And if one race is favoured over another, it is racism. I see you are afraid of the word now, calling it the "R" word. Racism is racism no matter what colour the person perpetuating it. Or were you one of those people who thought only white people could be racists?

screw it.

If this thing is 1000 years old why wait til now to try and enforce it? It would appear that had you wanted this enforced it should have been done since the time of Cartier. It is too late now to tell everyone they need to pass a test to get in. You really need to learn your history. Every European country that came here knew about it. The United States and every modern governing system borrowed from it but only enough that they could still control and limit their people. I thought you looked up the Two Row? You're too late to start making people jump through hoops to join your country. If there were criteria for citizenship they should have been laid out in the beginning. Not trucked out centuries later and expected to be followed.

Here we go giving deffinitions to that nasty "R" word again! I get warned for calling people imbiciles and you can still get away with calling us racists! We tell the truth, back it up repeatedly and we're still called racists. I've told you twice already about your Queen's debt. If you have an issue with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow. Personally I don't think I'll be doing it. After researching it I find the following: a) If I am not one of the majority my voice will never be heard! If I am one of the majority my voice will never be heard! c) If I own a big business I can have the loudest voice of all! d) If I am not an at least an upper-middle class citizen I'll never be an MP much less Prime Minister! e) If I am middle or lower class citizen I must carry the burden of taxes while the upper-middle and upper classes that can afford it get all the tax breaks! f) The wealthier I am the more justice will be on my side! g) Equality means that I can only have equal opportunity because as I can see from the items above I'll never be equal! Nope...I think I'll stay within the Rotinonshonni!!! Thanks anyway! When you use race as the reason for why one group should be put ahead of another group that is racism. If your plan falls into this category, well perhaps you need to rethink your plan. No! That's your plan. To take us out of our way of life and assimulated with yours. What are you trying to pull a Riverbend? Go back and read the posts. It's quite clear what I was saying and you know it. Now matter what angle you try to approach in this issue your not going to change the facts. Your wrong now give it up and move on. By the way...you used the "R" word again! I don't want to assimilate your way of life. Go have a PowWow they are pretty nice. Do a sunrise ceremony, have a feast, do whatever, but don't tell me you are entitled to my land because of your race. What you are saying is your race is better than all other races in North America and by devine right of race alone you are entitled to all the land. That is Racism.

If this thing is 1000 years old why wait til now to try and enforce it? It would appear that had you wanted this enforced it should have been done since the time of Cartier. It is too late now to tell everyone they need to pass a test to get in.

Theology is another debate. I don't bring God into legal discussions, it's not a rational defence of an argument. You were the one that opened that door; "As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it." Someone said god gave the natives the rights to the land.

Trick question there O. A non-believer doesn't believe in a heaven or hell, so whether or not they would enter it is irrelevant. Nice try though.

We don't have to have a village on the the land under the Haldimand Proclamation. We've danced this dance before. Your beloved Delgamuukw case doesn't hold any water on the Haldimand. Get over it and move on. I'm talking about defending our territory from an invading armed enemy that says they own our land when they don't and trying to steal our empty fields from us. My perception of things is exactly like yours. Try to stay on the right page here. I was pointing out the difference between defending ones home and what is happening in Caledonia. If you think there is any similarities, then we definitely don't have the same perception.

What was that?

Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme? Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick. There you go off half-cocked twisting the issues again. Why is it that it's O.K. for for everyone else to defend their property/territory but, when we do it we're extremists and terorists? Do you live in Caledonia? How do you know we're intimidating the entire community? What makes you think they aren't intimidating us? How do you know it's not both sides? It's always the natives. Want more? All we want is what under valid agreements belongs to us. I don't think your propaganda campaign will change many minds. Most people are to savvy to fall for your delusive rhetoric. You show me where the native village is, not was 500 years ago, but where it is now, on that land in Caledonia and you can have it. I'm talking about defending my home from an armed group who says they have rights to my land. Not blockading a road and holding some empty fields for ransom. Your perception of things is a bit off.

Here we go giving deffinitions to that nasty "R" word again! I get warned for calling people imbiciles and you can still get away with calling us racists! We tell the truth, back it up repeatedly and we're still called racists. I've told you twice already about your Queen's debt. If you have an issue with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow. Personally I don't think I'll be doing it. After researching it I find the following: a) If I am not one of the majority my voice will never be heard! If I am one of the majority my voice will never be heard! c) If I own a big business I can have the loudest voice of all! d) If I am not an at least an upper-middle class citizen I'll never be an MP much less Prime Minister! e) If I am middle or lower class citizen I must carry the burden of taxes while the upper-middle and upper classes that can afford it get all the tax breaks! f) The wealthier I am the more justice will be on my side! g) Equality means that I can only have equal opportunity because as I can see from the items above I'll never be equal! Nope...I think I'll stay within the Rotinonshonni!!! Thanks anyway! When you use race as the reason for why one group should be put ahead of another group that is racism. If your plan falls into this category, well perhaps you need to rethink your plan.

As an Athiest I resent the Idea that some god can give anything to anybody.

Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme? Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick.

Good to hear you invited people here. I can't wait for thier reaction to the news you want their homes and their land and would be willing to starve them out if neeed be, to get it. Or even that Natives feel they have the right bring a fire arm onto anyone's property and hunt game. Edit: The worst thing possible for the Native cause if for people to actually understand the Native cause. When it is clear to everyone, what the ultimate goal of natives is, sympathy will dry up.

The only real racists on this site, are those suggesting they are owed something simply because they are of a particular race.

It may be "my" Criminal code but you are completely misinterpreting it. You are making a mockery of all the true victims of genocide, and I seriously hope it comes home to haunt you. The genocide section of your Criminal Code comes from directly from the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II which states: Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article 2 ( © and (e) does not mean you have to cause death! And clearly defines what constitutes genocide. Canada became a signatory on November, 28, 1949. You might also want to pay close attention to Article 3 as well! Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; ( Conspiracy to commit genocide; © Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. I know, I know...here it is! http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html Go Talk to a Tutsi or a Hutu, about Genocide. You are cheapening the tragedy of their deaths, with your lame comparison. NOPE. (im non-native by the way) Naturally, academics have made distinctions between the forms of genocide - obviously academics from Rwanda. In your cushioned opinion, you can call a particular form of genocide "cheap". But what we are speaking of is genocide and intentions, excuses for doing it - not weighing up the methods of genocide . . . Rather, the people of rwanda would be the first to identify the subtleties of North American first world genocidal practices. A form of genocide which has been practiced all over the world. Rwanda used the "cheap" quick fix mechanism - of genocide and were well aware of the difference needless to say. So free health care, tax free land and commmodities, education, assistance programs, and freedoms other Canadians are not afforded, is Genocide??????? Yam you are off your rocker.

It may be "my" Criminal code but you are completely misinterpreting it. You are making a mockery of all the true victims of genocide, and I seriously hope it comes home to haunt you. The genocide section of your Criminal Code comes from directly from the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II which states: Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article 2 ( © and (e) does not mean you have to cause death! And clearly defines what constitutes genocide. Canada became a signatory on November, 28, 1949. You might also want to pay close attention to Article 3 as well! Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; ( Conspiracy to commit genocide; © Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. I know, I know...here it is! http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html Go Talk to a Tutsi or a Hutu, about Genocide. You are cheapening the tragedy of their deaths, with your lame comparison.

Ya I would love to see which political party chooses to back the Natives on that issue. 20,00 voters over here<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>500,000 voters over here

Here's a message back at ya. I have no issue at all with any minority. You are the racist here. It is you who is saying one group deserves something for no other reason than birthright. A week ago I would have said Give the Natives half of all crown land left undeveloped. I didn't care about a treaty then either. I just felt it was more than a generous offer and it would put and end to this militantism that is becoming a pattern. The Natives would have more than enough land to practice their way of life and ancient traditions. I thought it would be something good. But now I know even that much land would never be enough. All the Land, is what they want. Apparently, as it has been expressed on this board, they are more willing to go as far as to starve people out of their homes if that what it takes. Well that is another, Native supporter the extremist Natives of this board have converted.

It may be "my" Criminal code but you are completely misinterpreting it. You are making a mockery of all the true victims of genocide, and I seriously hope it comes home to haunt you.

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory - that is the law. If Six Nations respects the law then they will have to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement. If Six Nations chooses to violate Canada's territorial rights by smuggling goods then Six Nations is the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do: respect the law and negotiate a free trade agreement or use violance to take what they have no right to? You mean like the violence the Canadian government used at oh,Oka,Ipperwash,Caledonia???What if we white boys did the smuggling.i'd fight oppression in ALL it,s ugly forms.The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE.Welcome to the twenty first century riverwind. Oh wow another one that gets taken to school and starts crying "Racist". You've really got a reading and comprehension issue. If you read the post it says "we white boys"! He said, and I quote: "The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE." He is calling Riverwind a racist. Don't matter if he is white. He is still calling Riverwind racist.

I agree that Canada went there because al Qaeda was being sheltered by the Taliban. However, al Qaeda is now being sheltered in Pakistan. It could be a never ending battle. Canada has to assess if Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own and whether we contribute to stability or add to their instability. We stand in Afghanistan or we stand in our own streets. Kinda rock & hardplace type thing. We cannot kid our selves any longer. Any Western Culture is an open target.

Key words in your post: "as long as Canadians want to keep her." She is Barely a figurehead. The minute she tried to impose her will on this country she would be given swift directions to 123 Idontfriggin'thinkso St. Here's a happy thought. Go tell her that she owes the Natives the compensation for the land. The deal is with her anyway. And her family vault was filled by Canadian beaver. Hahahaha This is getting more rediculous with every piece of information.

Ya, they don't let them use the risk board and dice anymore.

Wow. Hear that RPG go by? Awesome. Come home safe boys, and girls.