tango Posted September 27, 2008 Report Share Posted September 27, 2008 (edited) You should try reading your own posts. Don't you think it is a bit hypocritical that someone should be charged for something that Indians are allowed to get away with with impunity? After all, they destroy and disrespect a legal and legitimate symbol of Canada, while this guy was removing the de facto flag of a quasi-terrorist organization. I guess the fact that he's suing the OPP for their inability to protect his property and quality of life has nothing to do with this, either. Don't read my posts then. kengs333, your views are extreme and your thoughts are twisted with 'white supremacist' dogma, and you are continually derailing a thread that is not about you. I have no interest. Please stop addressing me. Edited September 27, 2008 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 27, 2008 Report Share Posted September 27, 2008 Don't read my posts then. kengs333, your views are extreme and your thoughts are twisted with 'white supremacist' dogma, and you are continually derailing a thread that is not about you. I have no interest. Please stop addressing me. I'm not a white supremacist. I've made this clear time and time again, yet you flippantly continue referring to me as such. In such a case, you know that I have to respond... I think your conduct of typical of the kind of nonsense coming from Six Nations and is a reminder to everyone of what kind of people that Caledonians are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 One person's view of candidate McHale... http://www.thespec.com/article/292116 And some McHale election sign misdemeanors ... http://www.thespec.com/article/441351 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 One person's view of candidate McHale...http://www.thespec.com/article/292116 And some McHale election sign misdemeanors ... http://www.thespec.com/article/441351 I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make by submitting these links. Neither one is more than a verbal soundbite without substance or relevance. Both represent the views of single individuals and as such can not be seen as being of any significance over all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make by submitting these links. Neither one is more than a verbal soundbite without substance or relevance. Both represent the views of single individuals and as such can not be seen as being of any significance over all. I thought of posting a link to the one about the campaign sign; I think that the most likely reason for that happening is some members of Six Nations did it as a deliberate attempt to incite controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make by submitting these links. Neither one is more than a verbal soundbite without substance or relevance. Both represent the views of single individuals and as such can not be seen as being of any significance over all. My reason for posting is relevance to the thread topic, and this one too: Voters might be interested in knowing that said candidate McHale is out of jail on bail, and still under bail conditions while he is campaigning: http://cd989.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13816 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 My reason for posting is relevance to the thread topic, and this one too: Voters might be interested in knowing that said candidate McHale is out of jail on bail, and still under bail conditions while he is campaigning:http://cd989.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13816 So, what's Clyde Powless up to these days...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 I thought of posting a link to the one about the campaign sign; I think that the most likely reason for that happening is some members of Six Nations did it as a deliberate attempt to incite controversy. Well, these are the games that SN likes to play. As you can see, the resident SN supporters will go to great lengths to stir up trouble. How convenient that a McHale lawn sign would just happen to show up on the guy's front yard. It's just as staged as McHale's supposed assault of that SN woman--which anyone who has seen the video will know is a complete set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 Well, these are the games that SN likes to play. As you can see, the resident SN supporters will go to great lengths to stir up trouble. How convenient that a McHale lawn sign would just happen to show up on the guy's front yard. It's just as staged as McHale's supposed assault of that SN woman--which anyone who has seen the video will know is a complete set up. Couldn't agree with you more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 29, 2008 Report Share Posted September 29, 2008 Well, these are the games that SN likes to play. As you can see, the resident SN supporters will go to great lengths to stir up trouble. How convenient that a McHale lawn sign would just happen to show up on the guy's front yard. It's just as staged as McHale's supposed assault of that SN woman--which anyone who has seen the video will know is a complete set up. Sadly, you discount the fact that most people in Caledonia really don;t like McHale or want him in their community. You also play into the fact that McHale easily blames Six nations people for anything that happens to him. It really is an indication that McHale is in fact white supremacist with an agenda of trying to stir up trouble using race as his wild card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Sadly, you discount the fact that most people in Caledonia really don;t like McHale or want him in their community. You also play into the fact that McHale easily blames Six nations people for anything that happens to him. It really is an indication that McHale is in fact white supremacist with an agenda of trying to stir up trouble using race as his wild card. Personally, I don't know what the opinion of Caledonia residents is towards McHale. But the issue here is the fact that members of SN try to cause trouble by trying to set him up (with good ol' timmer, whom you no doubt know (perhaps intimately), waiting with camera in hand). You are right, McHale can "easily blame" them because somebody always happens to have a video of McHale being set up. As for McHale being a "white supremacist," you'll have to provide some conclusive proof. Until then, your unfounded accusation constitutes libel. You'll also have to show some conclusive proof as to his views on race. Are we to assume that anytime anyone is critical of Natives collectively breaking the law, that the critic is automatically a racist? It seems to me that it's Six Nations that's playing the race card here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Personally, I don't know what the opinion of Caledonia residents is towards McHale. But the issue here is the fact that members of SN try to cause trouble by trying to set him up (with good ol' timmer, whom you no doubt know (perhaps intimately), waiting with camera in hand). You are right, McHale can "easily blame" them because somebody always happens to have a video of McHale being set up. As for McHale being a "white supremacist," you'll have to provide some conclusive proof. Until then, your unfounded accusation constitutes libel. You'll also have to show some conclusive proof as to his views on race. Are we to assume that anytime anyone is critical of Natives collectively breaking the law, that the critic is automatically a racist? It seems to me that it's Six Nations that's playing the race card here. Criticism isn't racism. But McHale is constantly using the race of Six Nations people as evidence of a conspiracy of all SN people against ordinary Canadians or the rule of law. THAT in itself IS racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Criticism isn't racism. But McHale is constantly using the race of Six Nations people as evidence of a conspiracy of all SN people against ordinary Canadians or the rule of law. THAT in itself IS racism. Examples? Six Nations is an entity based on a common racial heritage. This is something devised by members of Six Nations themselves, not McHale or anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Hmm ... curious how a thread about Gary McHale turns into a thread about white supremacy! Just seems to follow him around ... like a bad fart! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Hmm ... curious how a thread about Gary McHale turns into a thread about white supremacy!Just seems to follow him around ... like a bad fart! because that's what you turned it into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) It occurs to me that many people reading this thread may not know who Gary McHale is, so I googled some news: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...8&scoring=d Rally organizer arrested at Caledonia occupation... - cbc.ca Edmonton Sun - Globe and Mail - All 8 related - Related web pages Rally risks fragile peace at Caledonia cbc.ca - Oct 14, 2006 "Until the people themselves rise up, these problems will not be resolved," rally organizer Gary McHale said Saturday. Gary McHale is an organizer of the ... Related web pages Caledonia protester faces $7.4M suit Toronto Star - Apr 19, 2007 The officers are suing Gary McHale, the organizer of several divisive rallies in the southern Ontario town of Caledonia. The community has been living with ... Alleging website defames them, officers sue... - Globe and Mail All 2 related - Related web pages Fantino asked to attend rights mediation Toronto Star - Apr 7, 2008 Vandermaas, along with protester Gary McHale, have come under fire for holding numerous rallies against the police handling of the occupation in the ... Related web pages Polarizing figure takes on native protesters Globe and Mail - Jan 20, 2007 When dawn breaks this morning, Gary McHale and his wife, Christine, will pull away from Richmond Hill in a beige sedan with two Canadian flags tucked in the ... Riot police keep order at Caledonia protest - CTV.ca All 4 related - Related web pages Tense rally in Caledonia ends peacefully CTV.ca - Oct 15, 2006 Rally organizer Gary McHale staged the event, inviting people to join a rally with speeches calling for an end to the months-old occupation of a housing ... All 4 related - Related web pages Edited September 30, 2008 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Examples? Six Nations is an entity based on a common racial heritage. This is something devised by members of Six Nations themselves, not McHale or anyone else. Wrong. Six Nations is a nation with a legal relationship between the Crown and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy defining their presence here. Prior to the strict controls of the Indian Act enacted since 1920, they even allowed immigration and emigration. They still do today however, they are limited to immigration from other native nations. That is because the Indian Act has made them an apartheid state. There is also no doubt in my mind that if government controls were off of Six Nations, immigration would once again begin to flourish. You see, if you go back to colonial days you will find all kinds of English, French and Dutch heritage intermingled among the Confederacy Nations. They never defined themselves as a racist or isolated state, realizing with a philosophy of communal benefit, increased populations guarantees long-term survival and increased community wealth. It seems you, like Gary McHale are among those who haven't a clue about the real Six Nations. Using some racist born imaginings of what you think Six Nations is about is what makes racists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Six Nations is a nation with a legal relationship between the Crown and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy defining their presence here. Prior to the strict controls of the Indian Act enacted since 1920, they even allowed immigration and emigration. They still do today however, they are limited to immigration from other native nations. That is because the Indian Act has made them an apartheid state. Let's see some examples of this so-called immigration. So if you're saying they had the legal ability to allow immigration into their territory prior to 1920, then why aren't the land sales that they made to non-Indians suddenly no longer valid? There is also no doubt in my mind that if government controls were off of Six Nations, immigration would once again begin to flourish. You see, if you go back to colonial days you will find all kinds of English, French and Dutch heritage intermingled among the Confederacy Nations. They never defined themselves as a racist or isolated state, realizing with a philosophy of communal benefit, increased populations guarantees long-term survival and increased community wealth. That's right to a certain extent. North American Indians were known to adopt captives into their society, but it was usually against the captive's will. There are numerous documented cases of innocent European settlers being kidnapped and forced to live among the Indians. Often they were children, after the parents had been brutally murdered. It seems you, like Gary McHale are among those who haven't a clue about the real Six Nations. Using some racist born imaginings of what you think Six Nations is about is what makes racists. So I guess I must be hearing things when members of SN keep whining and complaining about "white man"? Indians in general tend to view everything in terms of red and white. Claiming that I'm somehow a racist because I feel that Indians are inherently racist in their outlook is completely absurd. You'll do just about anything to legitimize the dubious manner in which members of SN operate, it would seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Let's see some examples of this so-called immigration.So if you're saying they had the legal ability to allow immigration into their territory prior to 1920, then why aren't the land sales that they made to non-Indians suddenly no longer valid? That's right to a certain extent. North American Indians were known to adopt captives into their society, but it was usually against the captive's will. There are numerous documented cases of innocent European settlers being kidnapped and forced to live among the Indians. Often they were children, after the parents had been brutally murdered. So I guess I must be hearing things when members of SN keep whining and complaining about "white man"? Indians in general tend to view everything in terms of red and white. Claiming that I'm somehow a racist because I feel that Indians are inherently racist in their outlook is completely absurd. You'll do just about anything to legitimize the dubious manner in which members of SN operate, it would seem. Under the Indian Act prior to 1984, women who married men of with Native status automatically received status. They became citizens of their host nation. Prior to that status wasn't important and there were migrations all over the place that saw many native and non-native people living together on native land and intermarrying. There were cases where children were taken to live with the natives rather than being orphaned to the wilderness, and in most cases when they became of age they would choose their present way of life over the way of life over their parents or the colonial society. There are even cases where the children were kidnapped back by the colonial relatives and when they were able they returned to the native communities. Your use of the the word "brutally murdered" is evidence of your disdain for native people. I wonder if you would use the same adjectives for the historical burning of complete native villages, or the displacement through starvation after their stores of corn and beans were burned? Or of their genocide by policy imposed upon them by the American, British and Canadian governments? The only ones that mention the term "white man" here has been you and a few others that we know lean the same way. And of course Gary McHale uses that term and the terms natives versus non-natives all the time. Your desire to turn this into a debate about race by injecting that term is further evidence that you are trying to make this a racial issue to detract from the legal argument, or the historical argument. Again it is what you say supports the evidence of your personal disdain for native people in general. I wonder if Gary McHale were here discussing this, if anything would be different? It seems you share much of your thinking in common. Dealing with the truth and historical accuracy is far from defending Six Nations. It is merely countering your myths and requires little effort. If you are a racist, you have demonstrated that all your own. I don't need to accuse you of something you make blatantly obvious. But if the shoe fits..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Under the Indian Act prior to 1984, women who married men of with Native status automatically received status. They became citizens of their host nation. But they have to be married to an Indian. That means that there is always a racial connection. There children would then be classified by race, also. Prior to that status wasn't important and there were migrations all over the place that saw many native and non-native people living together on native land and intermarrying. Whatever. So no member of Six Nations is really a full-blooded Indian, then? There were cases where children were taken to live with the natives rather than being orphaned to the wilderness, and in most cases when they became of age they would choose their present way of life over the way of life over their parents or the colonial society. There are even cases where the children were kidnapped back by the colonial relatives and when they were able they returned to the native communities. This is such a fanciful fabrication. It's like reading something denying the Holocaust. Your use of the the word "brutally murdered" is evidence of your disdain for native people. I wonder if you would use the same adjectives for the historical burning of complete native villages, or the displacement through starvation after their stores of corn and beans were burned? So a band of Indians raiding a settler's house and hatcheting the parents is not "brutal murder"? You see, again you look at things in terms of red and white. You assume that I'm a racist and wouldn't view whites killing innocent people as also being murder, which isn't true. I view all acts of murder as being just that, regardless of perp and victim. I also consider the extermination of the Huron and Neutral by the Iroquois as acts of murder, but I believe you have denied and/or defended these acts. The only ones that mention the term "white man" here has been you and a few others that we know lean the same way. And of course Gary McHale uses that term and the terms natives versus non-natives all the time. Your desire to turn this into a debate about race by injecting that term is further evidence that you are trying to make this a racial issue to detract from the legal argument, or the historical argument. Again it is what you say supports the evidence of your personal disdain for native people in general. On any given day on APTN the term "white man" will come up scores of times. I can even find you a website that lists Indian terms for Europeans, and the majority translate as "white man". And any time members of Six Nations are discussing Caledonia, the term "white man" is always bandied about. Dealing with the truth and historical accuracy is far from defending Six Nations. It is merely countering your myths and requires little effort. If you are a racist, you have demonstrated that all your own. I don't need to accuse you of something you make blatantly obvious. But if the shoe fits..... The only thing that is obvious in this is that Indians are racists and and that you will go to any length making excuses and apologies for anything that portrays Indians as less than noble. So it would appear that there are a lot of shoes that fit on your feet rather than mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 It seems candidate McHale has some difficulty distinguishing between his extra-curricular activities, and legitimate campaigning. The goal of campaigning is to convince people to vote for you, not to thumb your nose at them! County lays down the law on election sign placement Letter outlining rules is on the way Posted By KAREN BEST CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER Posted 4 days ago All six candidates for the Haldimand-Norfolk riding will receive a letter notifying them that Haldimand County does not want signs stuck up on its property or in road allowances. After making this announcement, planning and economic general manager Craig Manley said he did not know if the county had the resources to deal with this. As far as Coun. Craig Grice was concerned, candidates should use integrity in putting up their signs and should only put them up where there is a name behind it. In the case of municipal property, the county does not and cannot support a particular candidate, he stated. In voicing frustration about election signs, Coun. Don Ricker mentioned acts of taunting the public by where signs were put up. He did not name any candidates or locations. On Sept. 19, Gary McHale nailed a sign into the OPP detachment front yard but when he turned around an officer removed it. The independent candidate challenged the officer and told him it was illegal to touch election signs. McHale filed a complaint, an investigation was initiated and a promise was made that his sign would not be touched. According to a 1997 Elections Canada press release, the Canada Elections Act states that removal or mutilation of a sign is an offence. Candidates who want to put signs on private property should obtain consent of the owner. In the case of public property, the candidates were urged to contact the municipality to ensure sign placement complied with requirements. The same process should occur for signs on provincial or federal Crown land. Based on a 1993 Supreme Court decision, signs on public property are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The City of Peterborough's prohibition of signs on public property was declared unconstitutional by the court. http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/ArticleD....aspx?e=1220133 Of course, the difference between "taunting" and campaigning is ... votes! Congrats to candidate McHale for lowering his campaign to schoolyard bully tactics! I'm sure that will help at the ballot box! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) http://www.marchforfreedom.com/smf/index.p...msg3202#msg3202 "Gary's view on jobs" Those who want jobs can have them! Me, Gary McHale, I've never had a job, never have, , never will pay taxes but I'll just live off the public teat! Edited September 30, 2008 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 But they have to be married to an Indian. That means that there is always a racial connection. There children would then be classified by race, also. Whatever. So no member of Six Nations is really a full-blooded Indian, then? This is such a fanciful fabrication. It's like reading something denying the Holocaust. So a band of Indians raiding a settler's house and hatcheting the parents is not "brutal murder"? You see, again you look at things in terms of red and white. You assume that I'm a racist and wouldn't view whites killing innocent people as also being murder, which isn't true. I view all acts of murder as being just that, regardless of perp and victim. I also consider the extermination of the Huron and Neutral by the Iroquois as acts of murder, but I believe you have denied and/or defended these acts. On any given day on APTN the term "white man" will come up scores of times. I can even find you a website that lists Indian terms for Europeans, and the majority translate as "white man". And any time members of Six Nations are discussing Caledonia, the term "white man" is always bandied about. The only thing that is obvious in this is that Indians are racists and and that you will go to any length making excuses and apologies for anything that portrays Indians as less than noble. So it would appear that there are a lot of shoes that fit on your feet rather than mine. Wrong again. No matter how you try and twist it, you are still wrong. No, native women did not marry into "race". They emigrated to a nation. Canada has the same basic policy around marriage to a Canadian by an immigrant. And certainly the children of such a marriage would be classified as to their parent's nationality. However, the difference in law is that the Haudenosaunee do not recognize dual citizenship. So once someone has emigrated they no longer have a birth nation option. The Huron and the Neutral were not murdered by the Iroquois. That just your sixth grade education on the subject coming through. For the most part the Wendat (they were not "Huron") were decimated by disease brought to them by their French allies. Those that did not die of disease went east to Quebec to live among the French, under their protection. The Neutrals, along with the Petun and the Cat nations were sponsored by the Seneca and became members of that nation, also as immigrants. What happens on APTN is not representative of Six Nations. Did you lose your train of thought? Or is it just another attempt to generalize along your racial tones? There is no term in any Iroquois language for "white man". You must have put your bias into that one yet again. Hey. It is obvious to more than two of us what your and Gary McHale's racial agenda is all about. You are in denial. But that is ok. We'll keep reminding you that you have a racial prejudice towards native people and it comes out almost every time you get into discussion on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Wrong again. No matter how you try and twist it, you are still wrong.The Huron and the Neutral were not murdered by the Iroquois. That just your sixth grade education on the subject coming through. For the most part the Wendat (they were not "Huron") were decimated by disease brought to them by their French allies. Those that did not die of disease went east to Quebec to live among the French, under their protection. The Neutrals, along with the Petun and the Cat nations were sponsored by the Seneca and became members of that nation, also as immigrants. The only one twisting anything here is you. The war that the Iroquois waged against the Huron and Neutrals is well documented. If you do not accept these accounts, then there is no validity to any claim that SN now makes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted October 1, 2008 Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 Gary McHale group greeted by heckler at city hall Brantford Expositor, Canada - Sep 30, 2008 Native media and activists had gathered for the meeting in the city council chamber, originally in response to the possibility that Gary McHale, a critic of ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.