Posit

Nope. The land they are on is Confederacy land long held by Six Nations. The archaeology of the area tells the whole story. The "wiping out the Hurons, Neutrals and Tobacco" story is an invention by the British to justify their stealing lands that didn't ever belong to them. The truth is that the noted nations were around the perimiter of the Haldimand Tract under dispute and had lived there at relative peace with the Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawk peoples that lived there for over 1000 years. BTW the Huron were not the same as the Wendat who lived up the Bruce Peninsula. The Huron were north shore Confederacy Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawks living with Mississauga. The Wendat populations were reduced by the introduction of small pox by the French and the remaining people moved to Montreal area to live with the Caughnawaga Indians (Christianized Mohawk) and the Algonquins. For the most part the only antagonists were the colonial British and French who sought to drive a wedge between the various nations in order to break the trade stronghold the Confederacy had on the entire continent.

Justice Marshall's ruling was struck down on appeal by the Provincial government. Judge Marshall issued an injunction to the wrong people, nor did he have the authority to dictate what should take place in negotiations between tow parties. The appeals court ruled that after the builder was bought out by the province in April of 2006, Six Nations people had every right to be there without any interference by the court.

Ah...Another ignorant reply.....

....if someone occupies land for 150 years and no one does anything about it... And of course here is where you argument falls apart. The FACT is that Six Nations since about 1798 had been petitioning the British to not only get rid of squatters but to comply with the proclamations and keep settlement away from the Haldimand. The leases were an attempt to solidify some of these illegal homesteaders so that they and the government would recognize Six Nation's claims to the lands. The British, after giving up in trying to get rid of squatters arbitrarily reduced the Haldimand Tract by almost 400,000 acres in 1840 something. Then wave after wave of consecutive Confederacy councils petitioned and complained about the continuing settlement of the Haldimand - in many cases as a result of the government agents fraudulently selling off parcels without Six Nations consent. In 1920 something the Canadian government went in to Six Nations with armed police and forced out the Confederacy government at gunpoint and installed their own Band government system not only against the wishes of the Confederacy but all Six Nations citizens. Six Nations (as were other natives) were prohibited by law to retain lawyers to argue against the government and it was only about 1970 something that the ban was lifted. However, since that time the government has refused to produce records that support Six Nations claims. When finally Six Nations sued the government over the lands claims and produced the evidence to support their claims, the government decided to take it out of the courts and place in front of negotiators. As a result the Six Nations claims were further stalled by bureaucratic time delays and deliberate sabotage of the process. IN 2006 when Six Nations people (with the support of the Confederacy) took back some of their lands, the government finally got serious about pursuing negotiations. However, since negotiations restarted the government has done little positive to move the talks along, instead choosing to allude to missing documents, and throwing money at Six Nations negotiators without proving an accounting of where they came up with the amounts. So by all accounts, you just certified that Six Nations still owns the lands and has all rights to kick whomever they want off their territory. You see they HAVE done as much as they could about it, and the reclamations and occupations are the final act of a long and desperate process of justice and reconciliation. In in the end, the actions of the Canadian government , the racism that pervades discussion boards like this and the continuing attempts to deny culpability make all of us Canadians look bad. Too bad we can be the honourable people we once believed ourselves to be. We are nothing less than thieves and scoundrels and I'm ashamed to be a Canadian.

Dr. Robin Bredin, Toronto. The author of the article, "Cowering on Caledonia". Just another outsider trying to inject his venom into the Caledonia fray.

When the residential schools were closed the structures were torn down and the sites bulldozed. The children that went there spoke about the dead children but no one believed them. Today as adults many of them can recall the locations of the burial sites. However, it is difficult to pinpoint many since many of the sites have been either built upon or have grown over as scrub. What is interesting is that when the government announced the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the United Church started destroying records. Fortunately, some people in the Church were able to get copies before they were all lost forever. The TRC should be able to review many of the records and make that determination. All and all the 50,000 deaths is an estimate than many people believe is on the low end of the real number. Actually western world view thinking IS identifiable and it does pervade western societal thinking processes. It is kind of a western bias and until there is a remarkable change in the colonial / imperialistic / violence-is-an-answer / dominant thinking of mainstream society, the abhorrences of the past are a very real possibility for the future. The only thing that has changed in Canada between the times that residential schools were a solution to the "Indian problem" and now, are a couple of generations. And the only reason we presently don't use open genocide tactics to rid ourselves of natives is because it is politically incorrect to do so. But don't think for a minute that those same ideas aren't discussed behind closed doors of government or industry, just like they are discussed here in the anonymous safety of an internet discussion board.

Of course, you would never let some guy from Toronto speak for you Caledonians, now would you?

What is even stranger is that the same kind of thinking that caused residential schools is present in these people's everyday thinking. I wonder how many of the younger ones are lining up in the priesthood looking to get close to children?

Neither. It comes from AA statistics, research from the US, as well as my own research. The non-native statistics are under reported because mostly they are more readily keep secret. They even have their own closed AA groups to protect their identities. You'ld be surprised who goes to daily meetings.....some very prominent people..... 40% doctors have obsessive compulsive disorder and the majority self-medicate using mood-altering substances. I've mentioned before that my background is in substance abuse treatment and counseling. That includes remote native communities. What we also do not often see in the mainstream (including professional substance abusers) are the high rate of substance abuse that exists in the Armed Forces, work camps and those currently in recovery. There is a one in three chance that one of your co-workers has (or has had) a substance abuse problem.

Do you have a little trouble focusing on the topic? Or is your OCD just a little out of hand today.....?

During the Biosphere 1 and 2 experiments they discovered that trees have an upper limit of the amount of CO2 they could absorb. When the exceed that limit they begin to die. And with the yellow paste that hangs over the GTA most days, one less car would save a tree somewhere.

The rate of substance abuse on reserve is comparable to that in mainstream society. The fact is that because were are an affluent society, and because judges, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have more substance abusers in their ranks than natives do, we are successful at hiding that fact. While there are some cases where non-removal allowed harm to a child, it would statistically be consistent with what happens in our communties. Perhaps the problem lies in that since we cannot fix our own problems we should stop insisting that they solve theirs first.

The burning of tires at Caledonia put out less CO2 emissions and other pollutants than one day's movement of commuter vehicles from the 905 regions to the 416 region in the GTA puts out. Get over it. Stop driving to work and save a tree.

Oops. Then that would make you WRONG, since neither the protesters or their actions are illegal. In fact it is the government who has been wrong all these years, and now they knowingly commit illegal acts by failing to consult and accommodate First Nations on the use of their land for our enterprises. And with an absolutely incorrect position on this matter I would suggest that you never represent yourself in any court case - including by-law court. Quite obviously, doing so you would have a fool for counsel and a fool for a client all at the same time. I suspect too, that long before this is done, we will see First Nations get the lands back they had stolen, control of those lands exclusively and have our government provide hefty loss of use penalties to them, for our governments illegal and constitutionally prohibited actions of issuing permits on native lands.

The last residential school was closed in and around 1988. That's not that long ago. If fact is is recent enough to realize that the attitudes that created and maintained residential schools hasn't even cleared the current generation. Residential schools were not just some "moral attitude of the times" schtick. They were real attempts to brainwash children - to abduct them from their families and their communities and impose a foreign language, and to remove their own language and culture. There were murders and abuse of 5 and six year olds. There were nightly sexual trysts with the priest and nuns. There was solitary confinement for older children who would not submit. There was deliberate starvation and scientific experiments on these children - all under the cloak of caring for them. Yes forced assimilation is genocide. So let's bring it to the (more) present. The present estimate have approximately 5% of native children being removed from their childhood homes. This is disproportionate to mainstream, where only less than 1% are removed and then only after extensive consultation with the parents. More often than not mainstream children are placed in the same community, attending the same schools and see their friends. In more extreme cases they are moved to another neighbourhood but frequent visits are arranged to maintain contact with important family members to maintain continuity. The most common reason in the mainstream for removing children is for the children's protection. Alcoholism and drug abuse are not considered as sufficient reason to remove a child from the mainstream community and instead there must be a physical, emotional or sexual harm demonstrated. In native communities, children are removed because they live in poverty - income based - regardless of whether ot not the parents subsist off the land. Alcoholism, drug abuse and unkempt houses are used as justification for removal. When native children are removed from the family home there is no attempt to find local foster care, or to place them with extended family members. Instead they are whisked away to the big cities, often times hundreds of miles away from the native community and isolated from all family. They are usually placed in non-native homes who have little knowledge of culture, or language or the communities they came from. As well we all know that statistically there are more native people in prison than any other ethnic or cultural group in Canada. Yet natives make up less than 5% of the total population they represent as much as 60% of the prison inmates in western prisons. As recently as this week, a group of about 20 Navaho natives traveling across Canada were arrested and are being held on a mandatory 48 hour detention when they entered Ontario and are being treated as terrorists despite traveling from BC through western Canada without incident. The only thing that set them apart from ordinary Canadians is that they are visibly native. How would the RCMP (who overstepped their jurisdiction according to the OPP) identify this group except by their looks. Ya genocide policies are still intact in Canada. Only our government has hidden them behind a greater bureaucracy and behind laws that still marginalize native people. You want links and numbers I suggest that you start looking now. And along the way you are going to find not only all of the things I have discovered about what our government and society is still doing to native people, but you'll also find what the government is doing to us and we haven't even batted an eye.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will no doubt reveal many atrocities. However, for you immediate interest, the United Church has admitted in documents that will be submitted to the TRC, that many children in residential schools died under their care. Eye witness testamony will also show that deaths did not just occur as a result of sickness, but that children died as a result of be malnourished, physically and sexually abused and beaten to death. The current estimate is that 50,000 children perished in residential schools. However the toll is bound to increase once the witnesses start to reveal the locations of mass graves at those schools. As recently as this year, Phil Fountaine AFN Chief stated that native children are being removed from their homes on reserve by the Children's Aid Society and other welfare agencies and sent to non-native foster homes a distance away from their homes at alarming rates. The reason given in a majority of cases is because of poverty. The accepted definition of genocide as prescribed by the UN includes the removal of children from their communities - for any reason. Poverty is not a reason under the Child Welfare Act that children can be removed from their homes and families. Genocide is on-going. It is just hidden behind a different process.

An injunction has no effect on Natives, since they are a Federal responsibility under the Indian Act. As well the use of the injunction in the past has been an excuse to beat up the natives and it is unlikely that any provincial party would like something like that to come back and bite them in the ass....especially since this is election time. And not this is NOT extortion - not even close. It is Six Nations assert its sovereign right. In order for anyone to object they will have to prove that Six Nations is not sovereign - something our government has been unable to do so far. Being outside of provincial jurisdiction as well, gives them plenty of legal authority to add costs and charges over and above the province. Speaking of propaganda there is certainly a strong smell of manure brought in from a "wind" out of nowhere.

Probably as long as it took us to allow women to vote....roughly 60 years.....

My apoligies. Sometimes in my haste I fail to correct all my grammar. Read: "The government has recognized a number of fraudulent and illegal land settlements...." The Northern Boundary of the territory would be Tyendinaga Township extending another 20 miles north encompassing 95,000 acres. What would be equitable first of all it would be for you to stop using racial terms. It stain us all. As far as the land goes, The natives have stated repeatedly that they want land back. Where the government can purchase it, they will buy it. Negotiations are now taking place that will determine what to do with the rest. A drive through Deseronto, reveals that many houses are up for sale. I believe that is the first thing the government asks for before the expropriate so that they have a fair market value that they pay out in purchase. Now I see where your racist overtones come from. If you are indeed a lawyer with CH11, you are part of the that sensationalist rag that has consistently put down the natives....kinda a National Enquirer on TV. But on your point, Six Nations has already presented the Council minutes, and the correspondence in both cases and it has been accepted. You are not entitled to review them unless you can invent some reason for being part of the negotiation process.

You've been reading the back of the Cheerios box for your history lesson again, haven't you.... Consensus was required and Brant was never authorized by any Chiefs to negotiate on their behalf. In fact Brant was exiled to Hamilton long before some of the major land sales were supposed to have occurred. That is the fact. No land was every sold to "squatters". Otherwise they would never have been called "squatters" like duh! No money exchanged hands and all the monies that was supposed to be for the approved leases was placed in a trust account that the government, through William Claus IA was misappropriated. Money was seconded by the government and invested in the failed Grand River Navigation company (which tunred out to be a fraud) and some of it was borrowed from the trust (and never repaid) to build Osgoode Hall and a number of other government projects. I doubt you have read ANY documents since the stench of bullshit is so strong I can smell through the internet. The government has recognized a number of fraud and illegal land occupations both at Six Nations and the Haldimand and Tyendinaga. The claims to the rest of the Haldimand and the rest of Tyendinaga (again all lands above the 401 were stolen) will be submitted shortly. The problem with all the records is that they prove the claims are real. The government has attempted every trick in the book to obfuscate, delay and deny the claims. Ultimately, one by one they are admitting malfeasance and setting out the plan and process to return lands where possible and provide compensation for loss of use. In fact the local papers at Tyendinaga just noted that the Band Council is currently working with a consultant to determine the actual costs of loss of use of the Culbertson tract, accumulative since 1840. This study was requested by the government for only those lands (primarily Deseronto) that cannot be immediately returned. However, the government has preliminarily agreed to an acquisition plan - meaning they are willing to start buying homes from people who want to sell. Oh and BTW. When the Attorney General's staff made a public statement that Six Nations would not win in court, it was not based on any sound legal precedent. They said the same thing about Delgamuukw before it went to court and look where it got them. And in other words, you are full of hockey baloney.

Actually those records you have seen are usually only signed by about six people and the Indian agent. The IA's were known to have plied the Indians up with liquor before getting them to sign stuff. However, the Royal Proclamation set out the way that land was to be ceded and not only did it require the consent of the Governor, it required a consensus of the community. These are some of the things that have been point out. There is also one document that purports to contain all 50 signatures of the chiefs giving up a substantial land base. Funny thing is Six Nations has never had anymore than about 25 Chiefs since they arrived. The document provide by the government was a clear forgery. And no the "whole tract" was never given away, sold or leased. Not nearly. In 1805 Six Nations started petitioning the British government stating that squatting was occurring on the Haldimand despite their assurances that it would never happen. When asked to remove the squatters and settlers, the government's response was to do nothing. Then a couple of years later the new governor, Samuel Jarvis arbitrarily removed about 400,000 acres from the tract citing that because squatters had already settled it would be impossible to relocate them. Since then that same tactics have been used over and over again until now Six Nations is a little over 44,000 acres. The majority of the Tract was never ceded. It was stolen clearly and contained with the records of Jarvis' illegal conversions. Backgrounder - Burtch Tract Claim Further there were some lands that Six Nations believed that by leasing they could easily retain ownership, let the settlers clear lands for agriculture and benefit Six Nations economically. The leases were for fixed terms, most for 99 years. However when the written documents appeared (aftern being handled by the government) some of the lease periods had been altered to 999 years - a ridiculous attempt at fraud. The government maintains that Six Nations leased the land for that period of time, yet fails to consider the correspondence that states that Six Nations only agreed to 99 years. The bottom line is that the majority of the Haldimand has never been ceded, sold or leased. The titles that people obtain were inventions of lawyers in the 20th century when they tried to sell lands that had been prefixed without consent. That is the battle Six Nations is facing and our government has little to stand on in contrast.

Because the British version complete with government records match their side of the storey exactly. The government claimed in the beginning that first Six Nations leased the land, and when asked for copies of the leases now in default, government claimed the lands were really sold. Then about 4 months ago they were asked for the treaties, land sales or quit claim documents and the negotiators conveniently claimed that there was no single document that said they sold it but a number of different papers that indicated it might have been sold. Six Nations negotiators are still waiting for those "number of different papers" that the government can't put their finger on. There only response...."We need more time." Six Nations on the other hand has based its claim on the British records and provide a complete accounting of the lands and trust monies identified in their claims. The government accepted those claims a about 10 years ago when Six Nations was presenting their court evidence. Knowing they would lose the case, the government asked Six Nations to stop the civil court proceeding and take it to negotiations. That's where it has stood for about 9 years with the government "needing more time" every time there was a request to proceed. Six Nations, as patient as they have been for the 20 or so years these claims have been in the works, has run out of patience. By reclaiming land, and exercising jurisdiction over they are moving forward and requiring the government to make the case - something they are reluctant and most likely unable to do. The question isn't whether Native people have the right to vote - something granted in the 60's with the intention of assuming they were Canadian citizens, but "how many Six Nations people vote" in any of the federal, provincial, or band elections. The fact is that it is less than 10%, which is hardly any suggestion that they are Canadian. There are about 10% who either support the Canadian system or who don't know any better. That doesn't make them all Canadian by any stretch of the imagination. And so all of those media sluts out there that like to condemn people or groups of people through your xenophobic filters, take note. The story of the builder getting beat up is changin as more information becomes available. As I mentioned earlier, now a couple of eye witnesses are coming forward saying that the builder, a friend and a couple of nephews went in to remove a couple of teenagers from blocking the front entry of the house they were building when they got into a fist of cuffs with them. The two nephew admittedly went outside to get a couple of two by fours and when they returned the builder was lying unconsciouses and the kids were running down the street. I realize this is just another story, but as time progresses the media gets a little more correct. Just be patient. I'm sure that once all your hysteria settles down we'll find is was nothing more than machismo that got between two sides of a dispute. Snip: "The 33-year-old said he and a cousin left the house to grab two-by-fours and started back in to discover Gualtieri lying on the floor as he was struck with a piece of wood. Davies said he screamed to natives outside the house for help and the attackers fled." The Hamilton Spectator

Right now the Chief Electoral Officer has determined that to deny the face covering would be an infringement against their charter rights. Sure Harper has the option of making a challenge and in 10 years by the time it reaches the Supreme Court via due process, he might get a more defined interpretation (more likely not). However, that won't change the Charter law. It will merely offer one specifically applied interpretation. That's all.

It can ONLY change if there is a constitutional amendment which requires all the premiers and substantial Canadian involvement. There is neither the public will to validate what a few racists think, or the parliamentary fortitude to open that process up to make a Charter change. Instead we will have all forgotten about it in about 1 month.

Because it is the law and they have a Charter right to wear their face coverings anywhere they want - including while voting. Simple.