CANADIEN

Dodgin the question, I see. Speaking of the death penalty, you are of course aware of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church Care to comment?

Actually, the Nazi Party never won a democratic election, but that's besides the point. So now, the right for gays to be treated as equal citizens without discrimination is the equivalent of the MURDER of 6 million Jews and a barbaric war of agression? To call your statement a piece of c*ap is an insult to c*ap.

News to you. There is nothing, in Canadian and American law that states that homosexuality is an impediment to running for elected office or to be elected if a plurality of the voters chose to vote for that person. They have the right to propose any policy or law that is not contrary to the Constitution and, if a legal position to do so, implement it. You have the right, of course, to call for laes barring homosexuals from office. You have the right to vote for or against whatever candidate you want, for any reason. You have the right to ste they are unfit for the job, even when there is no such impediment in law. You have the right to protest their election, to oppose their policies in any legal way you want, and even to leave if you don't like it. And I have the right to say the truth about it.

The Constitutional Act of 1791, as YOU demonstrated, modified the Quebec Act of 1774, not the Royal Proclamation of 1763. See the Brantford thread about this one. There is no evidence either that homosexual tendencies is a learned behavorial trait, or a genetic defect either. No. It is a statement of fact. And tstating that fact does not constitute an attempt at supressing your freedom to make a fool of yourself.

One of the claims made by the Six Nations alleges that a surrender, on January 18, 1841, of most of what was then remaining of the Haldimand grant by Six Nations to the Crown, was in fact obtained illegally. As early as February 4, 1841, 17 days after the fact, the Six nations petitioned the Governor General to nullify the agreement, on the ground that the signatories ooon the Indian part had not been duly authorized to sign such an agreement by the Council. That claim was repeated on July 7, 1841, in an other petition that also alleged that the signatories had been intimidated into signing. The Six nations also claim that no plan of maps of the land involved were submitted to the Six Nations, as explecitely mandated by GOVERNMENT regulations regarding surrenders of Indian lands. Does not sound like a simple case of one party simply outwitted by someone with better negotiations skills, now does it. Other claims submitted in recent years by the Six Nations alleges actions by the Crown and their representatives that included: - sale or grant of Six Nations land by the Crown to white settlers or companies without that land first sold or surrendered by the First Nations (legally or illegally) - unilateral change by the Crown of leases of land to it by the Six nations into sales - misappropriation of money of the (Crown operated) Six nation Indian Fund by Superintendant Samuel P. Jarvis - mishandling in mismanagement of money in that funds (or money invested on behalf of the Six Nations) - violations, by the Crown, of the rules it had itself set for the surrender of Indian land - taxation, in violation of the law, of Indian land. As I said before, the claims should be recognized as true only after being examined through legal mechanisms. But each and every proven allegation of wrongdoing would be one more nail in the coffin of the "it's just because they were not able to conduct their affairs properly" theory.

Here's the exact words you used: Please, learn to be clear. The lack of understanding is clearly yours. It is very well documented that Joseph Brant sold land in the NORTHERN part of the Haldimand grant to sepculators in the 1790's. It is also very well documented that, in the 1840's and 1850's, the Crown arranged for the surrender of land in the SOUTHERN part of the the Haldimand grant. If you look at the Six Nations' list of claims, you will notice that only 3 of the 289 claims concerns land not located in the southern half of the original Haldimand grant. One is for land at the source of the Grand Rivr, that was included in the original haldimand grant but removed when Liet.-Gov. Simcoe modified the terms of the grant in 1793. Two others concern land allegendly transferred by a former Superintendant of Indian Affairs to the Six Nations in East Hawkesbury and innisfil Townships (outside of the Haldimand grant), in 1831, as payment for money owed by that individual to the Six Nations. In other words, the claims submitted do NOT involve land sold by Joseph Brant on behalf of the Six Nations in the 1790's.

Cutting nearly all foreign aid, right? Mind if I ask your opinion of Populorum Progrssio, or Tertio Millennio Adveniente, and what they say on the issue of roeign aid? As a Catholic, you should know what I am talking about.

In addition to section 15 of the Charter, that prohibits discrimination, there is no law in Canada that prohibits sex between consenting adults of the same gender. Nor there should be any, since this is not any business of the Government.

Indeed, people can be wrong and still be saved. Which proves my point that the problem with core beliefs is not what is believed, but how people deal with others of different faiths and opinions.

He was in Afghanistan. The Khadr mother makes a pretty good imitation of someone who hates us, then. Being in the middle of a group of terrorists, fighting, is not wha I'd call helping with school.

You seem to forget one thing - if the sales were illegal, then the Six Nations are still the legal owners, unless they later sold or surrendered the and through a legally valid transaction. And, unlike you, I don't subscribe to the non-sensical notion that they were forced to sell any land in the 1840's to parties other than the Crown. A better understanding than you, obviously, since I can make the distinction between sales the Six nations decided to do and those they were allegedly forced to do through deception or coercion. In other words, who cares if some land was stolen from them through coercion or outright lie? It's all OK because it's their fault. I wonder if you would claim that those people whose cars are stolen by criminals from the Six Nations reserve are to blame for not keeping an eye on their property.

If you looked at the prpoer legal definition, you would see that a legal entity that can legally enter into a contract. A definition that clearly involves legally constituted and register First nation organizations. Nothing to do with the fact they believe the claim to valid, right?

You cannot even get it when I mock you for your non-sense. Typical Leafless. I don't understand the fact the Sun revolves around the Earth either. I only understand reality, unlike you. Once again, you've proven you don't understand how our Parliamentary democracy works. And you still cannot quote a single word in the Charter in support of your claim.

By incapacitated, you mean of course incapacitated by the discrimination and racism they suffered. Strange that you write that and then claim that you don't know what I was talking about. Typical leafless.

If Canada is so bad, I will be happy to help you pack. Nope. :lol: While in the good old days they usally never saw the inside of a court house. Considering the way you pervert facts and logic, we should find you a nice closet. Yeah yeah, they're Canadians as long as they recognize that they are a lesser kind of Canadians. Otherwise, they're just French. The only immaturity is in claiming "discrimination" when all citizens are treated as equals under the laws. Now, now, even you cannot be so ignorant that you don't know about the abuse that took place in residential schools. Especially after you berated Harper for apoloziging for it last summer. Oh they sure learned how society functions: "speak your own language will get you a beating". Go there and learn.

You mean, the same way your position is based on the selective use of documentation to suit your agenda? BTW, of the 29 land claims submitted by the Six Nations 27 concern land that was part of the Haldimand grant. None of those claims are for land that the Six Nations acknowledge was sold or surrender with the full and free consent. Many of the claims are based on allegations that Six Nation consent on certain sales or surrenders to the Crown was obtained illegally, which would render those transactions void. Those allegations were already made at the time the events took place. I would be the last one to argue they have to be accepted as true without examination, which is why the claims and the related allegations are to be examined in a proper judicial forum, and sooner rather than in an other 150 years. Surely, you can't object to establishing the facts?

And the title of the law dictionary you found this in is? Too bad for your analysis that the Council supports the claim.

The notion that the Pope despises Vatican II just because he is a conservative is a bit simplistic. His writings over the years have made it clear that this is not the case.

A bit of a simplistic view, that only makes sense is one is to assume that God has voided his own Covenant with his Chosen People. Equally simplistic is the idea that is wrong to assume that one holds the truth and others don't. The source of conflict is not the fact that people believe that their faith, or political opinion, or philosophy is the only true one; it is that flaw in human character that seeks to destroy those who are different or think differently. The solution is the respectful acceptance of the right of the other to be and to think diffrently, even wrongly, which excludes coertion but certainly not real efforts at convincing the other. It is not to abdicate one core beliefs because "everyone is right at the same time", which is only an other way of saying "everyone is wrong at the same time".

Your slavish devotion to the "religion is bad, and those with faith can't think for themselves" view point is not what I would call freethinking or an independant perspective. It is merely droning the same line over and over again, only with some variations in tones. A real independant perspective would include noting the difference between acknowledging a person's (in this case Joseph Ratzinger) weaknesses and portraying him as a kind of human monster it is not.

The Band Council of the Six Nations is the legally recognized government of the Six Nations and therefore, to use your terminology, a legal entity (btw, I'd love to see the law idctionay where you got that term). Since pwnership of land by the Six Nations is collective, the Council has a legal right to claim ownerhsip of land as well of jurisdiction over it, and to pursue its claim in a LAWFUL manner. I capitalized LAWFUL in case you confuse this with support for law breaking.

Some of the land in the original Haldimand Tract was indeed sold by the Six Nations, and there was some dispute quite early on between them and the Government on the interpretation of the grant, and therefore on the legality of the sales. The Government's claim was the Six Nations could only sell land to the Crown, while the Six Nations' claim was that, as owners, they could sell land to whoever they wanted. Some of the early Brant sales felt through when the buyers (speculators) could not pay. Unlike what you claim, the Crown did not "force the Six Nations to make their illegal sales legal in the 1840's and 1850's. In fact, the Crown apprarantly purchased most of the tract from the Six Nations in 1841; that sale has from the start been contested on the grounds of allleged deception and intimidation by the Crown. In the case of the land in Caledonia, records show that the Six Nations agreed to lease land around Plank Road to the Crown in 1835. The Crown later claimed that a document signed in 1844 by some of the Six Nations chiefs constituted a sale of that land to the Crown, a claim once again almost immdiately contested by the Six Nations. Records show that on May 15, 1849, the land where the Hemco Development in Caledonia sits was sold to George Marlot Ryckman, and that the Crown issued a deed to him. Crown deeds (legally termed land patents) were only issued when land was sold or granted by the Crown. If it had been a transaction between two private parties (Ryckman and the Six Nations), they would have written and signed the deed between them, then submitted a copy to the local Land Registry Office. Henco bases its claim of ownership on the 1849 document. Not only does Henco say that the sale was by the Crown, but it also claims that the Haldimand Proclamation was only a license to live pn the Tract, and the First Nations never owned it legally. I am not one to take the claims of any of the parties involved at face value, but the "the Indians sold the land illegally then were forced to make them legal" bit is disproved by the records.

Kind of sad that blind adherance to the "religion is bad" mantra lead you with no other options than to drone endlessly about how we are to think of Benedict XVI as an evil man because he was less than a hero when he was a teenager. Others did more that he did, he should recognize that the way he saw his options as a teenager was wrong, now let's get to something more iimportant. All human beings are called by God to recognize Jesus Christ as their Saviour. To equate that with anti-Semitism is quite a stretcheven for you. And you ignore writings by the current Pope, both before and after his election, on the continuing validity of God's Covenant with the Jewish people. A little Googgle search will show you some of that, including ranting by traditionalist circles on how this makes him an apostate at best. Ecumenism, btw, is dialogue, not some kind of melting pot where all faiths become unrecognizable. Respect for and dialogue people with a different faith and prayers for conversion are not mutually exclusive. Both, and that's (the triomphalist Church willing to bend backwards to welcome back schismatic traditionalists) is my one problem with the current Pope. But to equate that with a renewed anti-Semitism as an official position of the Church or even a belief of most of its followers is simplistic, and false.

Yhank you for the suggestion, which I followed a long time ago. Most territorial claims by the Six Nations is on land that the Government granted them and that the Government, according to the claim, later sold without their consent. So now the whole Six-Nations is a criminal organization. Not just the ssmugglers, not just the thieves, not just those who erect barricades. All of them. Who cares about the law abiding ones, or the ones too young or too old to commit any crime. They are Indians, so they're all guilty, right?

I, of course, believe that criminals who blockade roads, smuggle drugs or steal should be arrested and thrown in jail, no matter the clour of heir skin. That being said, I didn't know that a determination had already been made in a proper court of law on claims by the Six Nations that lands granted to them by the Crown was later taken illegally. Mind you, considering your talk of an "ultimate solution", being chasing them, you will excuse me if I believe that they are wrong simply because they're Indians. Me, on the other hand, believe that it is high time that the issue be settled in a court of law -- in the case of the Six nations, it is ultimately very simple: that the Corwn illegally took away land it had granted to the First Nations, yes or no? BTW, I wonder what you'd sggest we do if the Six Nations decide to stay when we start telling them to move out.