Wild Bill

Rue, it would be wise not to take this story at face value. It has been kicked around this board for a while and no one yet has provided any real proof. It started off with a claim that "Girl pushed off a bridge! Here's the video!" Then when you watched the LOONNG video you realize that you never actually see a girl falling, or injured, or anything but but a protester shouting to the camera. Then when someone asks why they never heard this story in the media we're told that "It's a coverup!" Seems like mere propaganda to me. Anyhow, you're welcome to make up your own mind, of course.

Yes, I heard her say it. So what? People say all kinds of things. How is that proof? Why should I believe her? She has an obviously biased interest in the affair. I saw no one falling from the bridge. I saw no injured person. Just a claim to try to make the army look bad. As for the land rights, we have also been paying BILLIONS of dollars a year to natives, from our taxes, for generations! I for one am at the point to support overpaying the natives in one final settlement and then never giving them a dime again! It seems to me they now want their cake and to eat it too! Give them the land, but in the condition it was originally taken. They have no right to any windfall profit. Besides, as I've said many times, Six Nations lost my support when they used terrorist tactics against the Caledonia townsfolk. I have sympathy for many other bands in other areas of Canada but not this one. I am quite concerned that you can only push people so far. Sooner or later there will be a backlash. Governments have been slow to learn this about pushing the natives. Now it appears Six Nations may be making the same mistake with the townspeople. Meanwhile, I don't go anywhere near Caledonia, if I have any choice at all!.

This was my entire point! It's not a matter of blame. If HDI doesn't find a way to establish some credibility with developers they will have a very quiet, underworked office. The HDI can offer all the permits it wants. If developers don't trust HDI they won't bother applying for a permit from HDI OR the province! They won't develop there at all! As for Joan's claim that there are all kinds of HDI permits happening with all kinds of developers, let's look at the land a few years from now. If she's right then obviously there will be all sorts of buildings upon those lands. If they're still bare, as I suspect they will be, then she's talking through her hat again, venting her wishes instead of reality. Of course, since she changes her name so often she'll never have to admit she was mistaken. We'll see.

I watched the damn thing! Saw a lot of talk but no actual video proving anything about anyone thrown from the bridge or whatever. What I saw was a bunch of natives complaining in bewilderment about the hostile and negative reactions from the non-natives around them, after putting them through months of severe inconvenience. Frankly, I resented wasting my time! It definitely has influenced my willingness to watch any more such videos. I don't have that many years left to waste them in such a manner. The only native video I care to watch is "Rez Blues"!

You're dodging me again! Let me put it in simple enough terms for you. Developers trust in their governments and the system in developing non-native lands. Given the events in Caledonia this past year it's not likely they'd put any trust in the HDI to develop any land over which HDI claimed jurisdiction. They would feel that they could pay HDI and in a few years either face more monetary demands or even a protest to take their development away from them. You can rant and roar all you want that this perception is wrong or that someone like me has no right to even mention it. Who cares? HDI doesn't have to convince me or anyone else on this board. They have to convince any developer that otherwise would have been interested in investing in disputed property. You can claim they don't care 'cuz they don't what the land developed anyway. If so, then why create HDI in the first place? The mere existence of HDI implies they want development, just under their control. What I'm saying is that we can disagree till the cows come home. What will prove the point is how many developers pay HDI and start development. If lots do then you will be proven right. If few or none pay HDI then my point is valid. That's reality. It doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. A fact is or is not. I hope that wasn't too complicated...

I'm not at all ashamed of being an old white guy. I had no control over the genes which spawned me so the idea of pride or shame seems kinda silly. I AM proud of what I've done and what I can do! Particularly the fact that I can make a bitchin' tube guitar amp to make ANY style of guitarist sound his best! Racial pride to me seems just another form of tribalism, where you take your pride from the accomplishments of your tribe 'cuz you kinda lack any accomplishments of your own.

You're not addressing my point! I'm saying that after all is said and done, both with a municipal government and then monies paid to HDI, the issue becomes whether or not the situation changes some years down the road and the natives demand either more money or the land under the development. In a normal situation a developer can have some confidence that such a situation would either never arise or that he would have an opportunity for redress in court. HDI has no such history or precedent. It only has the history of native protest actions during the past year or so. Such actions have done little or actually hurt any perception of stability towards development. This is true even if for the sake of argument every historical Six Nations claim is perfectly accurate. Money doesn't care about your history! A developer only cares that he can build with clear title and never have to worry about losing his investment later. He doesn't care if his government is right or if the natives are right. Business only cares about a stable and legally backed investment climate. The whole Haldiman land claims issue has got business spooked and it's doubtful if a developer would put any more faith in a Jamieson than a McGuinty... However, I could be wrong. As the months go by we'll see how this HDI permit idea is accepted. One thing's for sure. McGuinty is likely too weak to challenge it.

I'm surprised at Mr. Detlor. I can understand the Haudenosauee missing an essential point but apparently he's a lawyer and should be well aware of the problem facing any developer in dealing with the HDI. When a permit is granted by the province it is understood that the province is legally bound to stand behind it. If there is any sort of dispute there is recourse in the courts. The problem with HDI is that being a native agency it has no credibility to offer any developer. How does a developer know that HDI or some other facet of native government may change the deal unilaterally? If they do, what recourse does the developer have? Appeal to a native court? I would be very surprised if any developer would risk possibly millions of investment dollars in anything sanctioned by an HDI permit. Natives have given a perception that they hold more faith in oral histories than in anything written. Some spokespeople on this very board have made the claim that reality is merely a perception and if you change a story often enough you change history. Furthermore, who's to say if after a permit was issued by HDI and many dollars were spent to begin construction the political situation at Six Nations might not change again. A different group takes power and decides not to honour existing HDI permits. What could a developer do? I find it very significant that HDI has gone ahead with this permit idea without even offering any rational or assurances to allay any such developer worries. They would have been woefully blind to have been unaware that such worries might exist. Particularly with a lawyer's advice available. Perhaps I'm wrong. Let's wait six months or a year and see just how many permits are purchased through HDI. The proof after all will be in the pudding...

Doing anything when you really don't understand the situation or don't know what to do is not a rational approach but rather a "panic' reaction. It's a "lottery ticket" method when you don't know what to do and just about as likely to pay off. "When in trouble, when in doubt. Run in circles! Scream and shout!"

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Now who's prejudiced??!! How you could come up with such a total non sequitur is frankly amazing! And to twist it into some kind of "proof" for your reasoning by saying that Angus is merely being emotional and that's why he doesn't believe you... I'm flabbergasted! And as a man I'm very insulted! How can you say that after a breakup most men hate all women? Seems more a reflection of what kind of men have been in your social circle, if you ask me! I've never known ANY man to have taken such a totally illogical view! They may have specifically hated their ex but the idea of all women being evil would not only not have occurred to them, if you had suggested it they would have laughed at you! Maybe you should find a different crowd. Madam, you should get some help!

Actually, the Queen has made no secret of taking her responsibilities to Canada quite seriously. You know, this disrespect for the Queen, our heritage and all that goes with it has really come about only in the last few decades, as we experienced a wave of immigration from different sources than before. It's all very well for these "newcomers" to refuse to adopt the incumbent heritage but it's a bit much to expect the rest of us to be supportive. I would love to see this issue put to a referendum, with a clear question. If my side lost, then I would have to accept the people's verdict. If we won, maybe it would stop the incessant nattering... If someone wants to live in a republic then let them become Americans.

Well, I learned long ago that our governments lie to us. What I haven't learned is why I should believe Six Nations! Just because one side is bad does not automatically mean the other is good. They can both be bad.

Are you serious? I would say that we have as much right to criticize Six Nations as we have to criticize any and all levels of non-native governments! Who died and made the natives perfect and above reproach? "No Mummy, you can't scold me for doing wrong 'cuz one of the other kids did wrong too!" Give me a break! If your argument came from someone on Six Nations then they should grow up and act their age.

Geez, talk about elitism! Just because you obviously don't like the man doesn't automatically make anything he says wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! But then, since I've read a few copies of the Sun I guess my brain must be fried and I can't have an informed opinion, as you said. Don't you think you're being just a teensy bit arrogant? Heck, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Dalton is not a complete dolt. Or even Bob Rae, for that matter, although I will never believe that his stupid song "We're in the Same Boat Now" is any better than that irritating Barney the Dinosaur theme song... Can you say "Ad hominem"?

Richard, years ago I had bought a brand new VW convertible. The then girlfriend now wife and I took it up north for a week at a cottage. The first morning another vacationer passed by and commented on how nice it looked, gleaming white in the morning sun. Then it started. He asked me if I had considered that buying an import hurt Canadian workers' jobs. Turns out he was from Windsor where he worked in a Chrysler plant. It was the wrong thing to say to me! My last vehicle had been a Chrysler van. It came with a 2 year warranty and in the first six months after the warranty expired it had nearly put me in the poor house! It was the worst quality piece of crap you could have imagined. You should know that this was just before Lee Iococca had needed to bail them out. After telling him this I asked him why, when he likely was making 2-3 times as much money as I ever had, I should be protecting HIS job by buying a piece of crap that he and his union brethren had gotten paid so much to build? He gave me a song and dance about hidden warrantees and finally tried to tell me that if I had driven the van to Windsor I would have gotten some help - utter drivel! No, I'm afraid I would not take kindly to being FORCED to buy something that wasn't as good as an import! That being said, I would support some government action with another facet of your problem. Right now a good portion of manufacturing costs to Canadian firms lies with anti-pollution regulations. Nothing wrong with "saving the planet" but why do we allow goods from other countries that have NO anti-pollution costs to enter the country with no compensating tariff or duty? China undercuts domestic steel and many other products by a deep margin by not having to pay "green fees". It's not just China, either. I still remember when I was a kid the local grape farmers were upset that the only product then or since that helped prevent mildew was banned in Canada, yet a stone's throw away in upper New York it was perfectly legal. The NY farmers were at a great competitive advantage against growers on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. If the product needed to be banned then why were grapes covered with the spray that came from another country safe to eat? So I WOULD support a level playing field! Just not a rigged one.

I'm afraid you've confused me. Are you saying that even though the Tamils kill innocents they are not terrorists because someone ELSE killed innocents? That Canada has no right to call such people terrorists because we have problems with health care? In other words, because we are not perfect in making people healthy we have no right to hold an opinion against those who totally remove someone's health, by killing them? All I know is that I don't care about someone's political goals as soon as they harm innocents. If a friend or member of my family was killed or injured by a terrorist act I would not forgive the terrorists because of the "purity" of their politics. I would hate them with every fibre of my being, no matter what country they came from. And I would consider them fair game for retaliation. I would never harm someone first but if he's harmed me or mine then all bets are off. Bruce Cockburn sang it best years ago: "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay!"

Here's the link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=248281 Isn't this just typical of these clowns? The only good think about this situation is that the injustice to the Caledonia citizens is now getting attention in a national newspaper and not just the local Hamilton Spectator. I wonder what Dalton would do if the natives claimed the land under Queen's Park? Wouldn't surprise me if he caved then as well. Just how far is this situation going to go before someone gets hurt?

Excuse me? You feel that serving in the military is a punishment??!! I would think that the last thing we want is to have our military used as a dumping ground for criminals. Why inflect these lowlifes on good soldiers? How would you like to have to rely on some gangbanger in the next foxhole to protect YOUR back? No, our soldiers deserve much more respect than that. Offering to serve your country with the potential of it demanding your very life is the highest form of honour. Dumping hoodlums into the ranks is not just dangerous but insulting. I suggest we send these "monkeyshines" to work camps on Ellesmere Island. Let them farm for their food!

"castatrophic nuclear accidents elsewhere."??? Where?? Don't mention Chernobyl! That would be like comparing a Lada car to the quality of a Lexus! The Russians built a reactor there that would have been flatly illegal in any other country in the world. To make it worse, the accident happened at the behest of a political manager who overruled ALL of the technical ones! You know how many people were hurt at Three Mile Island? NONE! Look it up! Now, do you actually have any idea of how the Chalk River reactor was built? You might have a better chance of winning the lottery ten or twenty times before you could have had a significant accident, especially during the time frame of just the few months necessary to correct the backup issue. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but NOT their own set of facts! The lady seemed either blissfully unaware of the problem she created WORLD WIDE by cutting off the supply of those medical isotopes or else she didn't care! She could have brought the problem to a higher level, considering the magnitude of what would happen. She didn't bother. She acted like a typical brainless bureaucrat, following the rule book while the roof was falling down. It's very likely that some sick people died because of her actions.

No need to clear up anything! Everyone is well aware that such judges act according to law. The problem is an increasing disconnect between the law and the concept of justice! Sadly, the actions of judges such as the one cited in this thread breed disrespect for the "system". This is a trend that has been growing in Canada for some decades and if not addressed cannot have a positive end. It strikes to the very heart of "consent to be governed", breeding cynicism and undermining deterrence for illegal acts.

Mr. FTA, I can understand how given your profession you can champion the Tribunal, or the very concept of rule of law. In an academic way I share it. That being said, perhaps I've misinterpreted your words or the tone in which they've been made in your posts but it seems to me that you're missing a crucial point. Defending yourself costs time and money! True, we have legal aid programs but many citizens fall into a "gap" where they are not affluent enough to mount a proper defense but not poor enough to qualify for aid. Now Ezra doesn't appear to be a pauper but I doubt if a proper defense before the Tribunal will come cheap. You yourself would be quite aware that while a court may award you a judgement it may not address your costs. For that matter, you may indeed get a judgement but you will need further court action if your opponent simply refuses to pay! Farmers have told me of cases on a larger scale where a mega-company like Monsanto invents a genetically modified crop. A farmer buys it and plants it. Come harvest the seeds from this crop "drift" over onto an adjoining farm. When these seeds germinate in the spring the other farmer is promptly sued by Monsanto for theft! There's never a court judgement because few farmers can afford to take on Monsanto's legal staff, so they simply "cave". This situation scales down to more mundane levels as well. The ability to afford litigation can be used as a tool to achieve your goal against an opponent, even if you are well aware from the start that if it came to trial you'd likely not prevail. Suppose you're a student journalist. You've been charged by the HRC for words published in a local paper or spoken at a student rally. It's not likely that the HRC would convene at the plaintiff's location. He would face travel expenses, loss of time from his studies and other costs. Surely someone like Ezra would incur a financial penalty for being forced to appear before such a court, "kangaroo" or otherwise. Or suppose you were a guest speaker at Queen's University and a student lobby group has you charged for politically incorrect views in your speech? You may have been from another country or at least some distance away. Travel expenses and time lost from your speaking tour may be enough of a valid fear to prevent you from even speaking at such a university. Would this not be an example of a legitimate reason to lose respect for "due process"? More simply, I'm saying that there seems to be a guerrilla tactic today of using the threat of court action and the costs of a defence as a perverse way of attaining your goals. A charge of a human rights violation can fit this definition. In this light, admonishments to "respect the process" can sound naive at best and cavalier at worst.

"...3.2 enough to give a good shake." Really? I don't think so! 3.2 would barely be felt! We've had a few in this range over the years and I've never been able to even tell they happened. A slight rattle of dishes in the cupboard for maybe a quarter of a second is about it. No, you can't excuse the lady that easily. She erred on the side of caution to a ridiculous extreme, probably because she had no perspective on how low the chances of earthquake damage really were. I mean, do you really think that earthquakes were never a factor in choosing the location of the reactor site? Engineers are legally liable for such mistakes. No engineer in his right mind would ever stick his neck out like that. Years ago I worked in testing labs and had first hand experience with managers such as this woman. They were extremely annoying because they were rarely technical in their perspective. They would play it safe to unnecessary and expensive extremes. The type of people who would put safety warning decals on eyeshields to excess, so that your vision was so obscured you couldn't operate the equipment! I've seen this excuse being offered up in newspapers like the Toronto Star. Maybe it would satisfy a poli-sci major from Queens but it doesn't do a thing for me. I've been there!

The PMO? I don't think so! He's burned his bridges here in Ontario. Rightly or wrongly, his fight with Harper looked to us like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too, with our taxes buying his cake! No, he obviously made himself popular at home but I wouldn't bet a flat beer on his chances in the rest of Canada.

Interesting. I've just read ALL your posts in this thread and I am struck by your repeated use of the word "consensus" as some sort of scientific proof. What has consensus got to do with science as a proof? A fact is or is not. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. There have been times when there was a consensus about the Earth being flat, or being the centre of the universe, and many others. Perhaps you might want to tell it to Galileo. I would be surprised to hear ANY true scientist make the claim that because he has a "consensus" behind him his premises must be true. Rather, his evidence and reasoning would speak for themselves. It is very easy to fabricate a "consensus". Tell a scientist that if he denies man-made climate change he will lose his funding and you'll see him sign up very quickly. He likely has kids to feed. Or consider the old "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin" example. You might have to weed through thousands of doctors to get that 4 but once you do you simply take just one of those thousands to put with your 4 and you can truthfully make the claim. This concept of scientific "consensus" is simply politics, not science. It's being used to get your opposition to shut up, so you no longer have to defend your argument. Frankly, the very idea of consensus as some sort of proof strikes me as far more of a religious thing. "You cannot deny our faith because so many of us believe it!" We all know what billions of flies eat but that's not a good reason to share their tastes...

+1, Rue! I hate to quote a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. He once said: "A Liberal defines freedom of speech as the freedom to agree!" I'm not saying anyone here is a Liberal and besides, the american definition is quite different from that in Canada and BOTH are far from the dictionary definition! Still, with regard to Alexandra it seemed apt.