Posit

Sure...and What does Gary McHale want? Or Paul Fromm? No, people don't want equality IF it means bending the status quo. And then there are the goofs like M.Dancer that just want to be goofs.

Army Forums.ca The 1990 Oka crisis was known in the Army as OP SALON. This op, the largest military operation in Aid to the Civil Power since OP GINGER (the 1970 October FLQ crisis), was conducted in response to a request for assistance from the Quebec Government, after the Surete du Quebec (the QPP) found itself unable to deal with the situation confronting it at the aboriginal reserve located at Oka near Montreal. While there are still many stories floating around about what happened, I was attending Army Staff College in Kingston around the time it took place, and was fortunate enough to receive a briefing to our class from the then-CLS, LGen Foster. It was very interesting, not the least for the incompetence displayed on the part of the QPP (a force with a number of blots on its record...). The natives, many of whom were quite well armed and were engaged in tobacco smuggling and other illegal activities, had fortified portions of their reserve in response to an earlier failed assault by the QPP at the site of a proposed development by the municipality of Oka, on what aboriginals claimed was their ground. The assault was a shambles: the QPP fired teargas but a number of the officers did not have respirators. In the confusion that followed, the only fatality occurred: a QPP constable who, IIRC, was shot by another QPP in error. The Indians easily resisted the assault. In due course the QPP realized that they needed help, and the process was initiated to request military assistance from the CDS via the Govt of Quebec. The military force that was deployed consisted mainly of 5ieme GBMC from Valcartier and Gagetown, but it was a truly joint force as it included fully armed CF-18s, armed naval elements on the nearby St Lawrence, and other assets. Army assets included the full range of battalion weapons, artillery, tanks and AEVs. A perimeter was established around the Reserve and the famous stand off began. An interesting point made by the CLS was that in one case the Army negotiated to allow an aboriginal to be brought out of the Reserve to go to a local hospital. The condition from the Indian side was that he was to be given safe passage and not fall into the hands of the QPP. According to Gen Foster, the result was that the Indian was placed in the hospital, but guarded by soldiers against the QPP! There was quite a bit of sympathy for the aboriginals around the country, from the usual quarters but from some surprising ones as well: while I was at Staff College, the City Council of Kingston voted to send the aboriginals blankets and medicine (due to pressure from various left-wing types on and off Council). The military were of course made to look like fascist monsters but overall we conducted ourselves well, including at such potentially lethal incidents as the Mercier Bridge confrontation. In general IIRC the Army displayed a much higher level of discipline and competence than that shown by the hapless SduQ. (Who later on wanted to buy their own Leopards...scary!!) The post-op analysis and intel stuff indicated that the Mohawks were well armed-there were reports of .50 cal, sniper weapons, and LAWs. Fortifications had been constructed, including propane cylinders wired to electrical initiator circuit. There were also persistent rumours that the local Mohawks had been reinforced by natives from the US who had US military experience. Fortunately, the stand off ended without serious injury or death (less the one poor QPP) and offers a useful model to study ACP ops. I'll never forget the comment made by a Botswanan Major who was sitting in the mess one afternoon and watching it on TV: "In my country we give them five minutes then we kill them all" Lefty Canadians who still winge about the role of the military at Oka might want to consider how this event might have played out in 80% of the world, as opposed to the professional but forceful manner in which we managed it. Cheers.

How does one cross-examine a long-dead shaman? First of all to correct your ignorance natives didn't have "shaman". That is pretty much a Russian aboriginal construct. And secondly, the "medicine people" who understood the workings of nature and applied them were not people who kept historical facts. And thirdly, Iroquois people had specialized people who were taught and in turn taught others the significant historical information. So you could ask the descendants of those people who were taught from a long line of generations of historians. As well to better understand how native history is preserved and recalled you would have to abandon the "history is dead" paradign we westerns hold so dear. Instead, history to Iroquois is a living entity, as much of the present as is the past. I realize that last order is beyond your capabilities but I am grateful that our learned judges have the intelligence and capacity to understand how it all works have applied it in their interpretations of law. As well to correct another of your misconceptions, the "Rule of Law" is not static. It evolves as were evolve as human beings. And as the power of law-making is ripped from the grasp of the mainly colonial Anglo-saxon Christian male,we find all kinds of changes occurring such as a move away from religion as supremacy in law, or recognition that women, gays and lesbians have as much right to choose their ideas of freedom without interference from old church marms. And that race - that construct so many here hold on to so dearly, is not a basis for discrimination. Law is dynamic and its interpretation is guided not only by previous interpretations, but by our ability to expand our thinking beyond xenophobic or emotional responses to events. That is why an open mind is necessary to be a Supreme Court Judge and not some political hack sent in to support the narrow-minded cadre who can't and won't evolve with the rest of us.

What is interesting is that my read of the natives was that they used to have names given to them when they were born and as they grew their names would change depending on what people saw them as doing. When there was an interaction with the colonials they had a hard time trying to peg them down legally and so gave them (and registered) their own names. That is why there are a lot of Englis, Dutch and French family names among native people. If we were to revert back to that style of naming (as Smith, Smithson, Jamie, Jamieson etc) I wonder what affect that would have on the Crown's right over us? I mean if we are not a registered name somewhere then do we really even exist as far as they are concerned?

In legal terms, the SCoC does not make any errors in interpretation. They confirm the law and have the final say. Still in those cases you state the courts accepted oral history as a form of evidence. The SCoC hasn't ruled an open season on oral history but has set out a number of rigorous tests it must pass before being accepted. That would be similar to the tests that are required for written evidence to be submitted. I mean one does not accept hand scratched notes written months after an event as substantial proof. Neither does it accept that agreements written by the British after they have come to oral terms with people who couldn't read holds much weight either and it is incumbent on the courts to fully certify agreement documents were fully understood by both parties. But like I said your opinions are worthless in comparison to what the "Rule of Law" actually is.

Friday night rallies anyone?

Then why pay taxes? It is YOUR debt to Canada and they have all means to obtain it if you fail to pay at the time it is due - including seizing your assets and selling them off. And in fact the government doesn't give you money at the end of the year. They return your over-payment of that debt to you. You are still in the hole by tens of thousands of dollars with no expectation that your debt will ever be repaid. If you have no income, or no assets they cannot ask you for taxes. And for someone who lives in and on the land it is quite possible to never use roads, sewers or any other infrastructure. The debt is greater than the simple dollar value attributed to it by the reigning government. Instead in order to determine the solvency we also have to look at our government's liabilities. CPC, EI, and other insurance type guarantees plus what we owe through untested treaties and lands claims with First Nations. That is huge. And no amount of assets can be liquidated to generate the needed income to cover our liabilities and debt. In essence if government would need to sell, it would be to us (in which case we are just paying the debt in another way) or the potential for government take-over of a foreign nation, or corporation (which would dissolve our financial independence). I would agree. I think the government is insolvent.

I have no agenda. However, the "Rule of Law" which you often dismiss supports not only Six Nations requests for consultation and meaningful accommodation, but through oral history puts their evidence on par with ours. Canadian law is the "Rule of Law" something most of you don't get because you fear it advantages First Nations in their claims against us.

Well again, your opinion aside, the Supreme Court of Canada believes oral tradition is reliable when it has met the tests they set out. AND in MNR v. Marshall they determined that the written agreement presented DID lie and so it was struck as being less reliable than the oral history. Applying you own preference to lying, it is natural that you would think all people are liars. However, many of us have broken out of that mold and have no need to lie. Therefore by the same measure we mete to ourselves, we CAN believe that people are to be considered honest, until they are proven not to be. We recognized you long ago so there is no need for introductions.

Well let me tell you pyles, if you could figure away to throw rocks with the windows in the car rolled all the way up, then I think I can get you a job with Conklins Carnie. Next time you WATCH THE VIDEO then perhaps you can tell us how Waneek Horn-Miller ran into the bayonet. She is after all an Olympic Runner...... You should join the army Angus. They are looking for people like you....and you know you would fit right in.....

Of COURSE we are making this all up. Go watch the movies and the news reports included in the documentary. I just LOVE how they reproduced all that gore and violence. They even used lots of fake blood and make that woman's hip look broken. You sure are a smart boy! Of course you haven't a clue and were probably one of the misfits doing the knifing.

The reality is the army was ordered to clear the Mercier bridge that spans between Chateauguay and Kahnawake and in doing so assaulted women and children. One soldier ran a bayonet through Waneek Horn-Miller, a fourteen-year-old Mohawk girl (yes, that would be the daughter of Kahentinetha Horn). They threw women off the bridge and corralled and beat anyone that got in their way. It was a frenzy of misfit soldiers out of control. So unless you are just full of shit for the sake of it I suggest you do your research before coming here and trying to spin a web of lies to protect the misfit Canadian Armed Forces. Go watch the movie and then come back and discuss it.

Oh but we are. And even though I don't let him, every opportunity he gets he tries to spoon me while I'm making love to his wife.......

No it is not..... According to a number of Elders and native teachers I have met over the years, the term "Indian Giver" comes from a practice where if I gave someone a fork and another person gave them a fork as a gift also, I had the right to go and take my gift back. This comes from the belief that all property (tools, utensils etc) are communal property and there really is no sense of ownership in the same way we tend to hoard things. In the example given, the practical side is there is no way that a person could eat with two forks at the same time, and since it is likely that someone else would have need of a fork I could choose another recipient of the gift. Although, the government in their attempts to steal and deceive natives sure give it a whole other definition, don't they.

I think I see his POV. 1. Remove the money and you remove your indebtedness to the government. They cannot extract taxes if you have no income, no assets and no transactions. 2. Regardless of whether the government accepts the gift or not, the handing over of all assets removes the obligation to the state. Eventually under the current law, if the assets are held in trust and the trust goes unclaimed after the death of the owner of that trust (which being no one) and the trustee cannot directly benefit from that trust, then it automatically becomes property of the government, right? 3. One doesn't need one to buy a cheeseburger and could barter any goods or services needed. While the government says they will tax barter on the same rate as income, it is impossible to get taxes from someone who neither has an income or holds assets..... Actually I find it quite ingenious save and except there is still laws including the Charter, which limit freedoms. And so long as one is self-regulating, there would not appear to be any way that the government could continue to have hooks in him. I have also heard someone say that the national debt is really just a debt owed to us, as citizens of Canada. If there is no way the government can extract taxes from us legally, then by completely removing our obligation to government a check of the math says that they still legally owe us...... Interesting....

I guess that makes you both a racist AND an idiot...is that what you are saying, Chum?

I think you are in an untenable position because you haven't a clue what First Nations want and can only "imagine" it. The people I talk to (who are Six Nation and Tyendinaga Mohawks) want nothing more than a justice that not only includes the return of lands 'stolen' from them and a removal of the economic barriers that continually obstruct their advancement. They say they are not interested in joining Canada but are convinced that the only way to move away from barricades and protests is when Canada recognizes and continues to polish the Covenant Chain. For those who don't know the Covenant Chain is an treaty of peace and goodwill made 200 years ago, that guaranteed consultation and consideration in every move either party did that might have an effect on the other nation. And this is exactly what the Supreme Court rule must happen when any development, resource extraction or alteration occurs on land in which First Nations have a treaty or aboriginal right on. I think it would be justice to at least do what we have been promising to do, and now are ordered to do under the "Rule of Law" I do believe this why negotiation is the only course of action that will solve these issues. However, the "English-speaking whites" as you coin, are the ones who are most reluctant to find compromises. You have heard many people around here and elsewhere no doubt suggest that First Nations must comply with our law and our moral society and norms, right? Who do you think are being the hard-heads? The fact that First Nations have been willing to enter into negotiations for all these years to resolve their differences is sufficient for me to say that they are more than willing to settle their differences, if only our side could hold up our ends of the bargains.

Again, for the slower thinkers.....the courts disagree with you. Oral history is AS reliable or MORE reliable in some cases than British written history. That isn't my opinion. It it th determination fo the court and thus the "Rule of Law". Courts are not political entities. There determine cases on point of law. They don't make law, they interpret it based on distinct rules of society. If they were political entities there is no doubt that the outcomes would be much different. However as legal entities their acceptance of oral history as being weighted as much as written history is a fact of our life in Canada and your objections over your opinion are pretty much pissing in the wind, so to speak. The "legal system" is NOT holding up the so-called "past land sales and surrenders". They are striking them down and using oral history as one of the points of evidence to confirm what the treaties mean and what was really agreed to. That's what is scary to the white Anglo Saxon Christian male: you're afraid of losing the ability to propagate myth as truth, and in turn the entire concept of Jesus begins to fall apart. I realize that all of this is emasculating for you, but since our lives as Canadians is built on myth and deception, I would just as well see the truth come out in whatever form it has to take.

A racist is someone who sees differences where there are none. And that pretty much sums you up.

Their assumptions about oral history come from some elementary school game we played where the teacher tells the first child a secret and then they pass it on until they get to the last child who then tells the teacher what the secret was. Of course the secret gets changed along the way. Because they could not keep a small secret straight and have attention problems as children, they prejudice their belief that Natives must have a memory like them. They cannot comprehend that oral tradition is a skill practiced and passed on among native people and they have a proficient recall about details and facts. In the majority of cases the oral history is tested against some of the written history presented to the court and links are found that validate the oral versions. The problem in written history is that it is tainted with the prejudice of the single writer and often relies upon hearsay to form those prejudices. However, when the facts are presented and the oral history is consistent with the facts, the use of oral history is much more reliable since it is carried by many people (and verified) and contains details of the reasoning for First Nations entering into agreements with the Crown in the first place.

I'm glad that you have an opinion geoffrey but I'm also glad that your narrow point of view holds no weight in a court of law. You see we are collective guilty as Canadians of taking advantage, lying to, cheating and manipulating the deals we made with First Nations. And I believe that this is partly the reason they are not involved in our society and seeking solutions outside of our system. And since you or your ancestors have no history of oral tradition that can be tested and validated the way First Nations have, it is suffice to say that your opinion - as entitled you are to it - really is not that important. By all means if it improves your blood pressure to vent, then go for it. But remember that nothing you say that tries to advance that simplistic opinion will have any affect on the courts, First Nations or the "Rule of Law" the way it is written. The courts have rule that oral tradition is NOT hearsay but carries as much weight (and more in some cases) as written history. This has nothing to do with DNA and everythign to do with the "Rule of Law". You do believe in the "Rule of Law" do you not?

You digress. Get back on topic and see if your common sense doesn't intimate racism, as it has all along.

Wrong again. The RISK of explosions or ignition is high but that is no guarantee that there will be an explosion or a fire. Your narrow thinking prejudiced by your common sense does not take you far enough to examine all the science behind it. And that is the same reason that your common sense turns into racism.

Look Jenny. You're playing their song.....

Sure. Ventilate the space it is in, or remove the atmosphere and replace it with an inert medium. These things are done all the time in industrial applications that require solvents to be heated as part of the chemical reactions creating other compounds. Ah, but your common sense limited you from even considering it.....