Ontario Loyalist

Yeah, I suppose you would lose weight by becoming such a stoner moronic-idiot that you would forget to eat, perhaps...

In order to properly understand this situation, one has to know what the various parties involved were, as there were clearly more than one group claiming to represent Six Nations. How can it be determined whether or not the surrender had been "duly authorized"? And how can it be determined if anyone was in fact "intimidated"? Or that maps weren't submitted? It's absurd to think, unless there are clear admissions of guilt extant on valid written records, that any of these allegations can be substantiated. As such, the issue will probably not be properly and legally resolved in the favour of Six Nations; which will lead to further protests, no doubt, and eventually a settlement to placate these people (for the time being, at least). The latter is a classic example of extortion.

Same to you. What I've said has always been clear. Six Nations was not documenting its land sales/surrenders, and the government forced them to do so in a legal manner. You apparently fail to understand what the entire situation is; they want money and the return of all the land that they sold or surrendered to their jurisdiction.

"Respect the laws" is pretty rich coming from the likes of you.

I can't deal with this tonight, but it's clear that you don't live in the region and aren't familiar with Aaron Detlor and his crank followers who go around with a map showing what they claim to be the lands granted in the Haldimand Proclimation.

The point is to demonstrate that "things change". If that wasn't the case, then people would be pointing all over the place to restore whatever they pleased. Perhaps we should go back to the 8th century and reestablish Charlemagne's Empire based on whatever treaties existed back then.

Yeah, well, the Nazi regime was democratically elected and their treatment of Jews and the prosecution of the war was all perfectly legal, so...

Something tells me that if I ever saw a picture of you, I'd have to pay you the same compliment...

So if Six Nations breaks the law by illegally selling their land, it should be returned to them? I'm fairly certain that according to English property law of the time, it would have to return to the Crown. Please learn how to read. I NEVER stated that Six Nations was "forced to sell any land... to parties other than the Crown"--I stated that Six Nations was forced to legally document land sales/transfers; ie., amongst themselves. I think you really DO NOT understand the situation back in the 1790s and early 1800s--there was no deception or coercion as you would believe it, since the process of these landsales/transfers are documented well enough to show that Joseph Brant, for instance, was very clear and deliberate in his intentions. I think you subscribe to the notion that Indians were hapless victims, which they certainly were not. They were simply incapable to fully understanding how to conduct their affairs, and in that respect one cannot expect to seek a legal remedy. If you sell a valuable classic car, and the buyer convinces you to lower the price considerably, the buyer cannot later be held at fault if you later decide that you were "robbed" because you agreed to the lower price.

The HDI is not legal, the Ontario Government has made that abundantly clear. Why don't you ask some of them, then? The people who want to reassert Six Nations sovereignty view them as holders of "non-traditional" positions which would be done away with. But they still want to keep their jobs because they pay well.

Oh, yeah, I'm always open to historical facts being established, but Six Nations clearly isn't. I have no problem with the conduct of nefarious Europeans being the topic of historical debate and criticism, but at the same time we have to address the truth about Indian cultures and societies, and the truth about Six Nations. I've stated it before, and I'll state it again, that Six Nations is at fault for an illegal sale of lands; they were doing this against the wishes of the government, but there was not much the government could to. Do you have any understanding of was pioneer Upper Canada was actually like, and why the government had virtually no power to stop illegal land sales/surrenders, etc. Whatever the case, the blame then ultimate rests on Six Nations; they were unable to conduct their own affairs, due either to drunkeness, ignorance, or weak leadership.

Google it. My law library is elsewhere and I'm not inclined to waste my time looking up the proper legal definition just to suit your inability to accept this TRUTH. Of course they would, the social and political repercusions for these people not to would be significant.

Anti-Christianity is alive and well in Canada Post: http://www.standard-freeholder.com/Article....aspx?e=1400799

I bought pencils recently that were made in America...

Yeah, Truman was kind of a douche for using nukes, so I can see a similarity...

Is that not what is written? If so, then that's what the case was, and those words are no less legitimate than those that speak to the creation of the so-called Haldimand Tract in general. The latter of course is the basis for the Six Nation's claim to the land, so it is legitimate; but that which indicates that Six Nations sold, surrendered, or did not have full ownership, is not legitimate. So Six Nation's claims are based on selective usage of documentation, ie. those that suits their agenda. Proof? I want to see the source for this. According to my understanding of English property law, that's a legitimate argument.

re: "legal entity," see also: juristic person ---> municipalities. The HDI is not a legal entity, and the Band Council is essentially viewed by Indians as something that was imposed on them by the "colonial" government. This whole "land claim" issue is being incited by so-called "clan mothers" and other shadowy "traditional" factions within Six Nations.

Well, if they did, then they have no reason to consider it valid. Non-legal entities attempting to coerce or extort legal government bodies are engaging in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. The Haldimand Tract DOES NOT exist; most of it was sold of by Six Nations long ago.

Well, where's the documentation showing that it was the GOVERNMENT that sold the land? It was Joseph Brant, and other members of Six Nations, against the wishes of the government that sold the land. It's the government that forced Six Nations to make their land sales/transfers legal in the 1840s and 1850s. Has nothing to do with the fact that they are Indians, but there certainly is a considerable sense of entitlement on the side of Six Nations it seems based on their being Indians. No other group would be able to get away with this, especially if their were "white". If there was a concentrated population of white nationalists doing this sort of stuff, the military would have been called out right at the beginning. And yes, all of them; the entire non-active element of Six Nations provides support for this conduct.

Honestly, though, I find much about the gay lifestyle to be offensive, and I have every right to express that opinion, just as someone has the right to argue that the Nazi movement was offensive. Even though, relatively speaking, some would make the argument that Nazism had its good point--the Nazis did, after all, pull Germany out of the Depression and raised the living standards considerably of some 60 MILLION + people. The fact that I'm being coerced into changing my signature under the pretext of being "respectful" is simply an "indirect" way of controlling my opinions. Funnily enough last night when I was watching a doc on the Vietnam war and they showed clips of anti-war demonstrations, what did I see? Placards with swastikas accusing "the establishment" of being Nazis and fascists! Interesting how this kind of stuff is tolerated in some respects, not in others.

The issue here is that the Crown granted land to Six Nations. Please feel free to read up on English property law of that period to understand what the arrangement entailed. Six Nations subsequently sold much of that land. Now apparently what Six Nations is doing is now trying to hold current governments and citizens of Canada responsible for, as tango has pointed out, not stopping Six Nations from illegally selling their land. Now they want the land returned to them and financial compensation, ie. they wanted to be compensated for their (Six Nation's) breaking the law. As for what would be done if they resist; the government has every right to remove "nations" that threaten or cause a disturbance of the peace, and dealing with them would be no different than what any other country would have to do with insurgent or large criminal organizations.

Where in the blazes do you get this nonsense from? Are you bent on supporting anything and everything that morally and politically undermines Canadian society?

It's not a right to be gay: it's a lifestyle choice that is self-destructive and destructive to society. Alcoholics have human rights, but not the right to be alcoholics and endanger the lives of others.

Yes, that is what he means, and that's what I mean by comparing the GRM to the Nazis. Once these people are in place, have power and authority, control the government and media, then there will be no discussion about this issue unless you want to suffer the consequences.

Yeah, you see, you are brainwashed, because you've done it AGAIN. Ideological movements always purport to champion equality, but they never do; they always claim to stand for what is right and just, but they in the end they are the opposite. This is what the Nazis did, what the Maoists, Communists, did--you name it. Also, it's a common tactic by the gay rights movement to compare themselves to the civil rights movement for blacks--but being born a skin colour isn't an ideology. So there's no connection. Well, I think the Nazis murdered more than 9 to 11 people, but whatever the case, I think that you fail to recognize the truth about Nazism. I think that anyone who has studies the Nazi movement can tell you that the Nazis were not "pure evil". There was certainly an element of evil in their ideology stemming from strong occult and quack sceience influences, but the Nazis were actually quite deceptive and in some respects did sincerely attempt to improve the social and economic staus of Germans. That's all part of the deception, and why they were able to delude so many people and succeed. In other words, very few people at the time really understood what the Nazis stood for, what the ultimate results of their policies would be. That's why we always need to be vigilant about such subtly deceptive ideological movements--like the gay rights movement.