Gary McHale Assaults a Six Nations Woman

[Wild Bill]

Mchale is neither confrontational or abrasive. He is a moronic psychopath-like boy who is annoying alone and incites hate when he gets into his crowd of uncontrolled rowdies.

Source, please?

[Oleg Bach]

Thanks. I respect people on both sides of this conflict. There are good people on both sides of this conflict who through no fault of their own have been thrown into this fucked up mess. Idiots on both sides engaged in violence can only make it worse. People like me only mean to comment on and criticize people like me, i.e., people not directly involved who comment on it. I only say people like us can state an opinion but if we simply inflame the issues by being rude to either side and generalize either side as idiots, we only make matters worse.

There are people like you who have your positions based on genuine well thought out points. I only hope those people directly fucked up by this on either side, can find a way out without smart asses including me with our comments making it worse. I can not presume to know what it is like to have it directly in my face like some of the parties have. I think the comment from the poster who witnessed a shit thing with his daughter but could stay so level headed on this post is an example of the kind of thing that will resolve this-people who have a right to be angry but keep themselves focused.

My issues with Keng have really nothing to do with this post but a general over-all issue which I know annoys some and I would kindly ask they just ignore me when I respond to Keng but I am doing it based on a principal I strongly believe in actually taught to me by a Christian theologian of all people who is dead but would expect me to do what I am doing. Thanks again for the patience to anyone I have annoyed with my posts.

I say it again, this conflict will be resolved. The hard feelings that come as a result of the violence will take time to heal and I am not in the position to tell anyone who has personally felt this anything other then people like me have to help people like you find a way to resolve this shit in a fair way. You have the right to live in peace and not have to live in this stalemate which is the direct result in my opinion of failed federal policies that have screwed both sides.

This Gary fellow is simply a thrill seeker and someone who desperately needs a purpose...being a provocateur is easy and quick satisfaction for him. The stalemate at Caladonia is simply a case of the older wiser first nations leaders who are in truth just orgainized crime - what these Indians ( can I say that) have figured out is that the powers that be are also organized crime. So the stalemate is probably the results of a little bit of black mail..someone knows something that can harm the established authoities - In comparison it is similar to the relationship that the Saudis have with the American oil merchants - they have the dirt on them.

[kengs333]

Mchale is neither confrontational or abrasive. He is a moronic psychopath-like boy who is annoying alone and incites hate when he gets into his crowd of uncontrolled rowdies.

Is that your new favorite word: "psychopath"?

You know "timmer," what would you consider him to be? What kind of person obsessively involves himself in a cause that is not his, and goes around baiting people and videotaping their responses?

[charter.rights]

Is that your new favorite word: "psychopath"?

You know "timmer," what would you consider him to be? What kind of person obsessively involves himself in a cause that is not his, and goes around baiting people and videotaping their responses?

Are you talking about that guy that goes around recording videos of McHale and his white supremacist friends? That Timmer?

From what I understand his wife comes from Six Nations. That makes him part of the "experience". Recording McHale's silly psychopath antics is a hobby, just like some like to blog about it, or put up silly inaccurate and racist websites. McHale on the other hand has no ties to Six Nations, or from what I understand Caledonia. He is just there to stir up shit...which is really what silly psychopath-like narcissistic little boys do. They gain pleasure in seeing people suffer.

Based on the 20 point Hare Psychopathy Test, McHale clearly meets the definition of what constitutes a psychopath, IMO. Given that the majority of White Supremacists are also psychopaths, putting a racist and a skinhead together at a rally under the guise of protecting people is harmful to the people they suck in. In the first year McHale's support fell off drastically as they found themselves being used by him and his white skinhead buddies to slag natives, and to divert attention away from being exposed to people who were convinced to push the violence envelope. So no he is not dangerous - he really is just a stupid man trying to act big and smart. When I first read about him and his band of interlopers, I had him easily figured out. He fools no one but a few insecure people looking for a messiah...and really of a messiah of evil.

And that Mark Vanderaass guy (McHale's criminal in training sidekick) is really just a another woman that wants to be his bitch. I would think if that guy had a brain, he would see how limited his time is on this earth and try to make things better. I understand that Vanderaass is not married either. Is he really gay or just so bad in bed that no woman can stand him?

Edited January 13, 2008 by charter.rights

[AngusThermopyle]

Are you talking about that guy that goes around recording videos of McHale and his white supremacist friends? That Timmer?

From what I understand his wife comes from Six Nations. That makes him part of the "experience". Recording McHale's silly psychopath antics is a hobby, just like some like to blog about it, or put up silly inaccurate and racist websites. McHale on the other hand has no ties to Six Nations, or from what I understand Caledonia. He is just there to stir up shit...which is really what silly psychopath-like narcissistic little boys do. They gain pleasure in seeing people suffer.

Based on the 20 point Hare Psychopathy Test, McHale clearly meets the definition of what constitutes a psychopath, IMO. Given that the majority of White Supremacists are also psychopaths, putting a racist and a skinhead together at a rally under the guise of protecting people is harmful to the people they suck in. In the first year McHale's support fell off drastically as they found themselves being used by him and his white skinhead buddies to slag natives, and to divert attention away from being exposed to people who were convinced to push the violence envelope. So no he is not dangerous - he really is just a stupid man trying to act big and smart. When I first read about him and his band of interlopers, I had him easily figured out. He fools no one but a few insecure people looking for a messiah...and really of a messiah of evil.

And that Mark Vanderaass guy (McHale's criminal in training sidekick) is really just a another woman that wants to be his bitch. I would think if that guy had a brain, he would see how limited his time is on this earth and try to make things better. I understand that Vanderaass is not married either. Is he really gay or just so bad in bed that no woman can stand him?

Well! I hate to be the one to break this to you CR but that little diatribe of yours is empty and pointless. it consists of nothing but basic and rather childish insults whilest saying nothing of substance at all. Come on now, surely you can do better than that.

[charter.rights]

Well! I hate to be the one to break this to you CR but that little diatribe of yours is empty and pointless. it consists of nothing but basic and rather childish insults whilest saying nothing of substance at all. Come on now, surely you can do better than that.

Well, don't blame me. There really is no point to McHale. Everything else that follows is empty.

[kengs333]

Well, don't blame me. There really is no point to McHale. Everything else that follows is empty.

What a lame response. If you want to voice your concerns about someone like McHale, try doing it in a manner that doesn't make it seem as though you belong on a playground.

[Rue]

That would be just about everyone here, I suppose. I would like to remind you, though, that this deliberate watchdog campaign against me is, in my opinion, borderline cyber stalking.

Each time you come on this forum and engage in a comment I feel needs to be challenged because it has no reference or basis and expresses your subjective feelings or hatred or conempt for others I will challenge you openly. That is called freedom of speech and that is why we have this forum to debate and challenge.

To suggest I am stalking you is absurd. It is out in the open. My intent is open, explicit and obvious. You might want to try responding with references to your plethora of remarks which you claim are based on facts and your expertise as to the New Testament, anthropoliogy, history, the holocaust, sexology, women's issues, aboriginal culture, etc. Still waiting for your academic credentials, references to the alleged academic sources you quote, and of course the Christian sect you claim you belong to which forms the basis of your beliefs.

[Rue]

What a lame response. If you want to voice your concerns about someone like McHale, try doing it in a manner that doesn't make it seem as though you belong on a playground.

So Keng, once again you can't resist the role of the preacher pointing the finger of accusation. Right this coming from someone who has yet to do anything but come on this forum and make remarks which he claims re based on facts but provides no references and for that matter won't even state the alleged Christian sect he is a member of. Right. You have the credibility to be able to lecture others on what is lame.

Look in the mirror Keng and yes I am challenging you to practice what you preach.

[Rue]

A very interesting story.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no members of Six Nations who post on here regularly. There were (and may still be) several who would not go out of their way to dispell the assumption that they were members of Six Nations; but in reality they are "white" and apparently have some sort of agenda other than "Native Rights". They've been attracted to the issue because it allows them to sow discord and instigate strife. If you go over to the reclaimation info message forum you'll find them posting as "timmer" and "granny" (and I'm sure there are a few others, as well, but I dn't know or really care who they are).

You going to back this up Keng with some proof or is this yet another one of your remarks where you smeer people with no basis other then your personal subjective feelings?

How many more unsubstantiated accusations are there in that mind of yours-it appeats endless.

Its easy to slur people when you can hide behind an anonymous pen name and speak in generalities isn't t Keng. Unfortunately you exploit the piurpose of this purpose to engage in such comments not use it as an exerciuse to exchange genuine opinions based on something other then whatt you do.

Again Keng what was the purpose of the above comment other then to name call, utter an inneuendo and try be divisive? How does it contribute to the discussion other then to inflame?

[Alexandra]

Each time you come on this forum and engage in a comment I feel needs to be challenged because it has no reference or basis and expresses your subjective feelings or hatred or conempt for others I will challenge you openly. That is called freedom of speech and that is why we have this forum to debate and challenge.

The irony of your claim to freedom of speech to -- express your contempt for another poster and to attempt to limit his freedom of speech -- appears to be lost on you. Rue.

`

[Rue]

The irony of your claim to freedom of speech to -- express your contempt for another poster and to attempt to limit his freedom of speech -- appears to be lost on you. Rue.

`

No the point appears to be lost on you.

I have not in the past nor do I now challenge his right to speak. I challenge what he says.

I challenge what he says because I believe he does not provide a basis in fact for the opinions I challenge and the opinions I challenge I contend are based on subjective hatred and nothing else.

I disagree with you that freedom of speech means I am not allowed to challenge someone I disagree with. Freedom of speech to me is a privilege and a responsibility and means if I remain silent to such comments I condone them and therefore do not respect freedom of speech.

Tell me Alexandra if you were the target of his hatred would you simply remain silent or would you challenge what he says? Do you think freedom of speech requires you remain silent when you disagree with what someone says?

if you want to ignore Keng or agree with him, be mu guest. If you want to agree or disagree with me, be my guest-but no I do not have to remain silent because that is what you think freedom of speech entails and I will continue to challenge his comments when they are not based on referenced fact and exhibit hatred towards people he identifies.

[Wild Bill]

No the point appears to be lost on you.

I have not in the past nor do I now challenge his right to speak. I challenge what he says.

I challenge what he says because I believe he does not provide a basis in fact for the opinions I challenge and the opinions I challenge I contend are based on subjective hatred and nothing else.

I disagree with you that freedom of speech means I am not allowed to challenge someone I disagree with. Freedom of speech to me is a privilege and a responsibility and means if I remain silent to such comments I condone them and therefore do not respect freedom of speech.

Tell me Alexandra if you were the target of his hatred would you simply remain silent or would you challenge what he says? Do you think freedom of speech requires you remain silent when you disagree with what someone says?

if you want to ignore Keng or agree with him, be mu guest. If you want to agree or disagree with me, be my guest-but no I do not have to remain silent because that is what you think freedom of speech entails and I will continue to challenge his comments when they are not based on referenced fact and exhibit hatred towards people he identifies.

+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.

[kengs333]

Tell me Alexandra if you were the target of his hatred would you simply remain silent or would you challenge what he says? Do you think freedom of speech requires you remain silent when you disagree with what someone says?

What hatred? I could write a post solely with the word "the" and you would accuse me of fomenting hatred towards the word "it" by virtue of its exclusion. The sad fact of the matter is that you've stepped over the bounds when it comes to "challenging" me by obsessively and obnoxiously focusing on me and writing lengthy (sometimes multiple) posts everytime you think I've said something wrong. That, to me, constitutes some sort of inappropriate behaviour; cyber stalking, or whatever you want to call it... I know you've been warned about such behaviour in the past, long before I started posting here. Do us all a favour and knock it off.

[kengs333]

+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!"

Not a huge fan of Limbaugh's, but that's pretty much what it boils down to.

[charter.rights]

What hatred? I could write a post solely with the word "the" and you would accuse me of fomenting hatred towards the word "it" by virtue of its exclusion. The sad fact of the matter is that you've stepped over the bounds when it comes to "challenging" me by obsessively and obnoxiously focusing on me and writing lengthy (sometimes multiple) posts everytime you think I've said something wrong. That, to me, constitutes some sort of inappropriate behaviour; cyber stalking, or whatever you want to call it... I know you've been warned about such behaviour in the past, long before I started posting here. Do us all a favour and knock it off.

I wouldn't necessarily call what you present "hatred" but I would say that that you promote "intolerance" and that likely stems from a deep rooted hatred - especially when you are discussing native issues. Being asked to explain yourself, as Rue has done on a number of occasions is not "cyber stalking" , not in the least. Being evasive as you have been demonstrates to me that you are hiding quite a bit more than you are presenting, and that the statements you have made are fabrications, lies, or half-truths. If you really had an interest in clearing this up, you would easily provide references for all your outrageous claims, like the rest of us have been asked to do time and time again. But then again, I believe you won't because you are not interested in being accurate, or in presenting facts. Propaganda is all that interests you.

Edited January 14, 2008 by charter.rights

[kengs333]

I wouldn't necessarily call what you present "hatred" but I would say that that you promote "intolerance" and that likely stems from a deep rooted hatred - especially when you are discussing native issues. Being asked to explain yourself, as Rue has done on a number of occasions is not "cyber stalking" , not in the least. Being evasive as you have been demonstrates to me that you are hiding quite a bit more than you are presenting, and that the statements you have made are fabrications, lies, or half-truths. If you really had an interest in clearing this up, you would easily provide references for all your outrageous claims, like the rest of us have been asked to do time and time again. But then again, I believe you won't because you are not interested in being accurate, or in presenting facts. Propaganda is all that interests you.

If you consider what Rue does as simply asking "to explain yourself" then you need to think again. Posting three, four, five times in a row in reponse to ONE of my posts is NOT normal.

What outrageous claims? When have you yourself provided any references?

[Rue]

+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.

But I do respect Alexandra's right to say she is sick and tired of me responding to Keng and probably feels the best way to deal with him is to ignore him. That point is not missed on me, and I concede her point. I just respectfully disagree.

[Rue]

If you consider what Rue does as simply asking "to explain yourself" then you need to think again. Posting three, four, five times in a row in reponse to ONE of my posts is NOT normal.

What outrageous claims? When have you yourself provided any references?

The quickest way to shut me up Keng is to provide references for these comments you throw out as facts. Without references they are remarks. Without any objective basis I look at these remarks and when I see all they do is make negative assumptions and then assign negative generalizations to a target, i.e., an entire group of people or gender or race or people of a specific religion or culture, I challenge you and will continue to do so.

Until you provide references for your remarks they are nothing more then subjective opinions and as such they should be challenged if they call on people which they do, to engage in the same negative assumptions.

I do not think "hate" is too strong a term for what you state. Why? Because your comments necessarily call on people to consider the target of your comments morally inferior and so capable of being ridiculed and feeling superior over them. That to me is hatred.

If someone else wants to call it a simple opinion of yours, be my guest.

I once again ask you to provide references for your comments when you claim they are fact and to state the religious sect you claim you base your religious views on.

Keng for you to ask what outrageous claims means what? Would you have anyone believe you are not aware of your remarks? Would you have anyone believe your refusal to back up your subjective opinions with any reference when you claim it is a fact is not outrageous?

Say what you want Keng but when I have challenged you I have provided specific references to challenge your opinions. Until you do the same with any fellow poster, you show what? That you are intellectually lazy or simply fabricating as you go along? How in the absence of any references is it possible to conclude anything but that your comments are based on your biases which are flawed precisely because you won't reference and research them and consider if they may be based on something you have misunderstood or have deliberately ignored?

You want to know what is outrageous? Outrageous is someone believing their reigion is the only correct one. You would have people believe your belief in immaculate conception, a God (clearly not from this world) impregnated a human to create a hybrid God-man. You ridicule others for believing in their legends and yet you expect people to respect yours?

Outrageous is you telling everyone to be a true Christian they must think like you, and that being a true Christian means you have the right to dismiss anyone who does not think like you as an inferior sinner and refer to them in derogatory terms.

Outrageous is trying to simplify a complex, multi-tiered and elaborate faith system such as the ones the aboriginal societies have followed as a belief in spacemen when you yourself preach the exact same thing and more to the point, this religion you claim to understand prohibits you from using it to put down others or call them immoral or inferior.

And on that note, I could also say outrageous is me continuing to challenge you but outrage is the fuel of many a good debate.

The point is Keng you will never understand aboriginals or anyone else, if you simply assume you understand them without ever making the effort to learn who they are and what they believe in and no Keng it means more then going on the internet and reading one article from a hate site or reading only things you agree with.

[Argus]

McHale is a professional racist agitator.

You and he seem to have something in common, then.

[AngusThermopyle]

Wow! This thread is really dragging on isn't it!

Back on topic. It's just my opinion but I really don't think the videos linked prove anything at all. As stated before by others, they actually appear to refute more than bolster the assault claim. Couple that with the fact that they show the Natives involved in the basest of light and I don't think any advantage at all is won by the posting of said videos.