raz395

Re: "signatures" There were no signatures on the surrender, Bill, just X's with names written beside them all in the same handwriting. Some of the names were of people who were not chiefs or people of responsibility either, and had no authority to be a signatory. It was a made up list. Six Nations was very clear that they would lease the land only. There was no surrender for sale. Our governments were pretty consistent in their arrogance, for they repeated this shenanigan all across the country. Six Nations is not the only Indigenous Nation to be plagued by such illegal and fraudulent manoevres by Canada. It's a very consistent and well known pattern, known by everyone but a few, it seems.

On the contrary, Canada has no claim to the tract. Developers have searched their titles all the way back and found that their titles are not clear, because there are no documents of transfer from Six Nations to the Crown in Ontario's Land Registry.

Hey look ... I came late to this discussion and I watched the film. Might I suggest you do likewise before making up your own story? Even I know the churches were here doing their 'convert the heathens' schtick, to acquire land and riches for their church, LONG before Canada existed. The proof of intentional infection is the deliberate failure to segregate children who were ill and reports of deliverate placement of well children in bed with ill children. Some former students also report infection by injection of entire rooms of children, all of whom died. Scary to think this happened in Canada. Does the current government know, do you think?

Actually it is Canada's dubious claim to the Haldimand Tract that is in question.

No it is not the recommended nor the legal practice. The courts order negotiations.

It is disgusting that Harper thinks he can get away with doing this all by himself.

Six Nations has a right to prevent development on land in dispute until the government consults and comes to agreement with them about uses of that land.

Actually, it was the OPP, on order of the judge, that resorted to violence.

Hmmm ... just a reminder that none of the disruption to Caledonia would have occurred at all if not for the ill-advised, brutal and completely botched raid by the OPP on April 20 2006. ALL of the concerns you have identified occurred after that event. The responsibility for disruption in Caledonia lies squarely with Canada's federally appointed judge in Haldimand County, a landowner in the Haldimand Tract himself, in clear conflict of interest, abusing his court to evade the laws about the Constitutional rights of Haudenosaunee Six Nations people. And he not only abused their land rights but their basic human rights too.

And that is something to be proud of? I disagree.

That's interesting, isn't it ... that few news hounds have scoped this out. It is a pretty dangerous story to flirt with I would think, considering what happened to the Minister in the film. I can't imagine any of the news people I know of wanting to get involved. Everybody needs their paycheque.

One must always be careful with what one says, since all human beings are damaged by vitriol, prejudice and malice, and what you say can come back on you. It is simply a function of living in society together. You make me think ... perhaps the reason that people like Paul Fromm don't seems to have the ability or interest in censoring their own words is because they are not really committed to living in this society: They want their own 'white nation' so they have no respect for the civilities that allow us to live together in peace. Food for thought.

It wasn't the 'greens' who jumped on the biofuels bandwagon. It was 'Bay St' with all of its HUGE SUV's, looking for an easy solution.

It saddens me to see that there are no opinions expressed here on how to resolve the issues peacefully. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me though, because the vitriol emanating from leaders in Caledonia suggests little commitment to peaceful resolution from that town. That is too bad. The only way out of this is forward, and accepting that things have changed is critical. Nobody denies that the town has experienced disruption. The question is : What is the way forward for the people of the area?

I speak from what I saw in the film. Perhaps if you addressed the information presented there, we could discuss it from the same perspective. MDancer It appears that the stories exist (see film). As for the graves, it appears they are unmarked. For good reasons, I may be much less likely to believe in the 'pure and noble intentions' of our governments than some people. To me this is entirely believable, and fits with other disturbing information: The rate of death from tuberculosis was, by a huge margin, the highest death rate from tuberculosis ever seen anywhere in the world, a death rate simply never attained by normal transmission, reflecting deliberate, not accidental infection.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?s.../native/snipers Much of his time was spent in "No Man's Land", the dreaded area between opposing forces. As well, Norwest and his observer often slipped behind enemy lines. I just looked to see and boy ... war is hell ... spending your war time in no man's land? brutal.

I have heard about this and watched the film link in first post here. I think Posit is right: The church got rid of Kevin Annett, and refuses to acknowledge his research. The government pretends it knows nothing of children who died, but the evidence of deaths in the stories of survivors and families of children who didn't come home is pretty irrefutable. It seems to me it is a story that has not been told to Canadians.

Interesting discussion here. Very balanced and all views presented in a light and interesting way. Perhaps to clarify some points, in the decision it was clear that "malice" was evident in Paul Fromm's actions and words, so the decision was pretty clear. This issue is clouded perhaps by the identities of the people involved, but it is a simple case of defamation, imo. Thanks for your comments!

Court Holds Richard Warman Defamed by Postings on the Internet In a decision released on November 23, 2007, the Honourable Justice Metivier, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, held that Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. defamed Richard Warman in a number of postings on various Internet websites. Richard Warman is a lawyer who has filed a number of complaints about hate speech on the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). He has been successful in all of these complaints (ten) that have been decided to-date. The Defendants were responsible for posting a number of articles critical of Mr. Warman on different websites. Justice Metivier found that the postings were defamatory of Mr. Warman and not protected by the defence of fair comment. She stated: "I find Mr. Fromm's dominant motive was to attack Mr. Warman personally in retaliation for Mr. Warman's use of legal processes to restrain illegal speech. The motive of malice is seen throughout the evidence, including the context of the publications, the flavours and tone of the intemperate and unnecessarily inflammatory language used, the extent of his e-mail distribution list which Mr. Fromm admitted was in the thousands, and the letters to Mr. Warman's employer, the CHRC." In assessing damages, Justice Metivier noted the effect of instant and possibly global dissemination of defamatory material over the Internet. She awarded general and aggravated damages totaling $30,000, and ordered Mr. Fromm and CAFE to post full retractions within 10 days to all websites where he had posted the defamatory material. Richard Warman was represented by Pam MacEachern, a lawyer with Nelligan O'Brien Payne. Court Decision http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/Warman_Court_Decision.pdf ********************************************************** I think all online bloggers, indy media, etc may take notice of this decision. Kinda makes you wonder about what you can and can't say.