McHale running as an Independent in election

[AngusThermopyle]

Not me.

[tango]

But the Supreme Court of Canada is a Canadian court of law, and apparently Indians don't feel that they are bound by Canadian (and Ontario) law when they are arrested for breaking the law. So why do laws that benefit Six Nations have to be respected, while at the same time they don't respect the law or feel themselves bound by it?

Do you agree that our governments must respect our laws?

That is all that is required.

[kengs333]

Do you agree that our governments must respect our laws?

That is all that is required.

So if the Canadian government passed a law today stating that all members of Six Nations should be deported to Cuba, would you still believe that "our governments respect our laws"? Or are the laws only legitimate when they benefit Six Nations?

[tango]

So if the Canadian government passed a law today stating that all members of Six Nations should be deported to Cuba, would you still believe that "our governments respect our laws"? Or are the laws only legitimate when they benefit Six Nations?

That's impossible. Stupid comeback. Answer the question. Never mind. Your opinion is worthless anyway.

The laws must be followed. The supreme law of Canada protects the rights of all people, including Aboriginal rights. That takes precedence over criminal law.

That is why the police must uphold rights on both sides. There should be no building on traditional Indigenous land without consultation and accommodation of Indigenous rights.

That is the law.

[kengs333]

That's impossible. Stupid comeback. Answer the question. Never mind. Your opinion is worthless anyway.

The laws must be followed. The supreme law of Canada protects the rights of all people, including Aboriginal rights. That takes precedence over criminal law.

That is why the police must uphold rights on both sides. There should be no building on traditional Indigenous land without consultation and accommodation of Indigenous rights.

That is the law.

It doesn't matter if it is "traditional" or not. The land was granted to Six Nations, and they subsequently sold parts of it off. They mismanaged their affairs, did not keep proper records, and Canada cannot be faulted for that now, over 150 years later. Moreover, if you want to get into whether the land was "traditional," that would require assessing whether the Crown legally purchased the land from the Ojibway, and whether the Iroquois owe survivors of the Huron, Petun, and Neutrals who were exterminated or driven from their land.

Now, I'll ask the question again, and please be so kind to politely respond. If Canada passed a law that called for the deportation of the people of Six Nations to Cuba, would the law be valid, and would Canada have the duty to carry out that law?

[tango]

It doesn't matter if it is "traditional" or not. The land was granted to Six Nations, and they subsequently sold parts of it off. They mismanaged their affairs, did not keep proper records, and Canada cannot be faulted for that now, over 150 years later. Moreover, if you want to get into whether the land was "traditional," that would require assessing whether the Crown legally purchased the land from the Ojibway, and whether the Iroquois owe survivors of the Huron, Petun, and Neutrals who were exterminated or driven from their land.

Now, I'll ask the question again, and please be so kind to politely respond. If Canada passed a law that called for the deportation of the people of Six Nations to Cuba, would the law be valid, and would Canada have the duty to carry out that law?

No, because it is illegal under International law, and stupid. How about instead we should deport you to the big 'white nation' waiting for you at the north pole.

You are missing the point: Traditional land is what matters for "Duty to consult". The governments must consult about development on all traditional lands, whether under land claim or not. It's about "A say in development and a share in resources" on all traditional Indigenous land. That's "Aboriginal Rights". For example, the City of Hamilton consults with Six Nations about development because of their traditional land rights on all of the land under the NanFan Treaty.

Land claims, which you described, are a separate issue pertaining to Aboriginal Title. I'm not going to argue those with you, as neither of us can know the full truth until they are individually settled. And, as I said, it is irrelevant to "Aboriginal Rights" which exist anyway.

You really don't know what you are talking about though. The government holds Six Nations traditional lands 'in trust' and has a fiduciary duty to conduct their financial affairs re the land. It is Canada that has not produced an accounting of the monies related to sales and leases of lands.

[charter.rights]

It doesn't matter if it is "traditional" or not. The land was granted to Six Nations, and they subsequently sold parts of it off. They mismanaged their affairs, did not keep proper records, and Canada cannot be faulted for that now, over 150 years later. Moreover, if you want to get into whether the land was "traditional," that would require assessing whether the Crown legally purchased the land from the Ojibway, and whether the Iroquois owe survivors of the Huron, Petun, and Neutrals who were exterminated or driven from their land.

Now, I'll ask the question again, and please be so kind to politely respond. If Canada passed a law that called for the deportation of the people of Six Nations to Cuba, would the law be valid, and would Canada have the duty to carry out that law?

There in is the problem with you position.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 - protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms today - prohibited British subjects and Canadians from purchasing any Indian lands. Only the Crown could negotiated a cede and only as long as a number of fully democratic community events took place. So far the government hasn't been able to establish that Six Nations lands were properly ceded, or if monies to be paid for leases, or surrenders were ever paid. In civil jurisprudence failure to prove title, or failure to prove consideration (payment) reverts the agreement to before it was made. While the government has made a statement that the 1844 surrender is proof, Six Nations has said it is not. Simply this proves nothing but indicates a starting position in negotiations.

The Ojibway - the Mississauga were the 8th nation of the Iroquois Confederacy according to Mitchells Map 1757. The Petun, and Neutrals were also adopted into the Confederacy and now are represented by their member nations the Seneca.As stated before, the Wendat were killed by the French introduction of diseases. Those that did survive, went to Quebec to live.

The "Huron" were not the Wendat - that is a historical error. The Huron were North Shore Confederacy Iroquois and their territory extended north to the Ottawa River.

[Riverwind]

The Royal Proclamation 1763 - protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms today - prohibited British subjects and Canadians from purchasing any Indian lands.

There is a problem with your position.

We live in a democracy which means majority rules. The majority would currently like to see a negotiated settlement that gives something to Six Nations but the majority does not give a damn about correcting wrongs that may not have occurred 150 years ago if the cost of correcting those wrongs is too high. If the current constitution gets in the way it can be changed and there is nothing Six Nations or any other group can do about it.

[charter.rights]

There is a problem with your position.

We live in a democracy which means majority rules. The majority would currently like to see a negotiated settlement that gives something to Six Nations but the majority does not give a damn about correcting wrongs that may not have occurred 150 years ago if the cost of correcting those wrongs is too high. If the current constitution gets in the way it can be changed and there is nothing Six Nations or any other group can do about it.

The majority rules ONLY within the freedoms defined under the Charter. You can dream all you want about the Charter being changed but the modern reality is it can't. Damn we can't even get Quebec to sign it despite having a remedy thrust three or four times. Majorities mean nothing when we elect politicians who don't care about us once they are elected.

The wrongs didn't just occur 150 years ago. They are occurring today, as well.

[Smallc]

The majority rules ONLY within the freedoms defined under the Charter.

Yet you deny the power of Section 1. You are really a piece of work.

[Riverwind]

You can dream all you want about the Charter being changed but the modern reality is it can't.

All it takes is the appropriate incentive. Out of control land claims that undermine the rights of the majority of Canadians will provide that incentive. But I don't think it will get that far. It will be resolved by a SCC descision that will uphold the principal that "two wrongs don't make a right" and that aboriginal title does not trump all other values. That is what has happened in Austrialia which was the template for the more recent pro-aboriginal title rulings.

[kengs333]

There in is the problem with you position.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 - protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms today - prohibited British subjects and Canadians from purchasing any Indian lands. Only the Crown could negotiated a cede and only as long as a number of fully democratic community events took place. So far the government hasn't been able to establish that Six Nations lands were properly ceded, or if monies to be paid for leases, or surrenders were ever paid. In civil jurisprudence failure to prove title, or failure to prove consideration (payment) reverts the agreement to before it was made. While the government has made a statement that the 1844 surrender is proof, Six Nations has said it is not. Simply this proves nothing but indicates a starting position in negotiations.

Do you even realize that you're undermining your own arguments? Joseph Brant sold Six Nations land. This is something that he, as a member of Six Nations, did; this is properly documented. How could he do such a thing? The Crown had virtually ZERO authority at that time because in the late 18th century Upper Canada was frontier territory; no police, no real courts, no real administratve apparatus. Later on, as things became more organized, the issue became that Six Nations was not properly conducting its affairs; it was the government that forced Six Nations to start maintaining documentation of his transfers of land because they simply swapped it amongst themselves as per "tradition" or sold it off to land speculators to but more booze. The fact that there are records starting in the mid-1800s is because of the fact that the government wanted Six Nations dealings to be legal.

The Ojibway - the Mississauga were the 8th nation of the Iroquois Confederacy according to Mitchells Map 1757. The Petun, and Neutrals were also adopted into the Confederacy and now are represented by their member nations the Seneca.As stated before, the Wendat were killed by the French introduction of diseases. Those that did survive, went to Quebec to live.

Whatever the Ojibway are, they owned the land that Six Nations is situated upon, and sold that land to the Crown, which in turn granted it to Six Nations.

The "Huron" were not the Wendat - that is a historical error. The Huron were North Shore Confederacy Iroquois and their territory extended north to the Ottawa River.

The Huron were situated in the Midlands region of Ontario. Their presence and demise has been extensively documented.

[kengs333]

No, because it is illegal under International law, and stupid. How about instead we should deport you to the big 'white nation' waiting for you at the north pole.

There's nothing in "International law" that makes deporting illegal aliens who engage in criminal activity "illegal". If members of Six Nations do not feel themselves to be Canadians, then they are illegal aliens.

You really don't know what you are talking about though. The government holds Six Nations traditional lands 'in trust' and has a fiduciary duty to conduct their financial affairs re the land. It is Canada that has not produced an accounting of the monies related to sales and leases of lands.

You know what it says to me when a so-called nation is subject to the fiduciary duty of a larger political entity...?

[kengs333]

Well, McHale got 10% of the vote. That's respectable for an Independent. I'm a little mystified by Finley's re-election, but I suppose the Carbon Tax had a lot to do with that, it being a large rural riding. The poll results should be interesting.

[tango]

There's nothing in "International law" that makes deporting illegal aliens who engage in criminal activity "illegal". If members of Six Nations do not feel themselves to be Canadians, then they are illegal aliens.

You know what it says to me when a so-called nation is subject to the fiduciary duty of a larger political entity...?

Again, that's ridiculous. You cannot "deport" people out of their homeland.

Edited October 17, 2008 by tango

[charter.rights]

All it takes is the appropriate incentive. Out of control land claims that undermine the rights of the majority of Canadians will provide that incentive. But I don't think it will get that far. It will be resolved by a SCC descision that will uphold the principal that "two wrongs don't make a right" and that aboriginal title does not trump all other values. That is what has happened in Austrialia which was the template for the more recent pro-aboriginal title rulings.

There was lots of incentive for bringing Quebec under the Constitution too, but t failed miserably.

The SCC has so far indicated that the definition of aboriginal rights is going to become more detail every time smeone appears before them. There is no more interest in the general public to mess with the Constitution there there is for hairy men to go in for a waxing. You can dream all you want but in the end all you are left with is a fantasy.

[charter.rights]

Do you even realize that you're undermining your own arguments? Joseph Brant sold Six Nations land. This is something that he, as a member of Six Nations, did; this is properly documented. How could he do such a thing? The Crown had virtually ZERO authority at that time because in the late 18th century Upper Canada was frontier territory; no police, no real courts, no real administratve apparatus. Later on, as things became more organized, the issue became that Six Nations was not properly conducting its affairs; it was the government that forced Six Nations to start maintaining documentation of his transfers of land because they simply swapped it amongst themselves as per "tradition" or sold it off to land speculators to but more booze. The fact that there are records starting in the mid-1800s is because of the fact that the government wanted Six Nations dealings to be legal.

Whatever the Ojibway are, they owned the land that Six Nations is situated upon, and sold that land to the Crown, which in turn granted it to Six Nations.

The Huron were situated in the Midlands region of Ontario. Their presence and demise has been extensively documented.

Wrong again my cheezy friend.

Joseph Brant sold land within the confines of a sovereign and independent nationhood. Land was sold to farmers and labours in order to clear the land for future prosperity. Other lands were leased with the same intent. In fact the British also sold land for settlement with a goal of populating the wilderness. Doing that owever, did not diminish the Crowns sovereignty over the lands they sold.

Six Nations to this day asserts their sovereignty and there is plenty of evidence to support their claim.

The FACT is that the legal history concerning ownership and sovereignty over lands began in 1757 with Mitchells Map and ownership was certified under the Royal Proclamation 6 years later (a very short time period in 8th century administration). By recognizing that the Mississauga were part of the Confederacy and the Royal Proclamation 1763 was instrument to obtaining land, the British had to have known (or ought to have known under the law) that the Mississauga had no more authority to sell Confederacy land than did the US to sell New York land. As such the Huron-Robinson treaty and the Williams treaty are ineffective under the law. Southern Ontario - almost all of it - belongs to Six Nations and has never been ceded under the requirements of the Royal Proclamation 1763. That is the law today as it was in 1764 and nothing can change that.

The Wendat were in Georgian Bay region. The "Huron" -meaning North Shore Confederacy Iroquois - were in control of southern Ontario and were not realated.

[Riverwind]

The SCC has so far indicated that the definition of aboriginal rights is going to become more detail every time someone appears before them.

And sometimes the ruling will place limits on the claims and rights and those limits will be designed to ensure there is not a massive public uproar. So you can fantasize as much as you want amount imaginary rights but that does not mean SCC will agree and even if the SCC agrees in principal it would limits the claim to protect the integrity of the legal system. Edited October 17, 2008 by Riverwind

[charter.rights]

And sometimes the ruling will place limits on the claims and rights and those limits will be designed to ensure there is not a massive public uproar. So you can fantasize as much as you want amount imaginary rights but that does not mean SCC will agree and even if the SCC agrees in principal it would limits the claim to protect the integrity of the legal system.

There is no fantasy involve on my part since the SCC judges have said as much - that as aboriginal claims come before the SCC, they must provide more detail. They would prefer that the government at least make an honest attempt to define what aboriginal rights mean so they have a reference. But when they don't the SCC must do it for them.

And of course the record shows that more rights (and not less) are being defined and solidified as we speak. I mean what does consultation mean? The SCC says it means "meaningful consultation and accommodation. What does meaningful mean, and what does accommodation mean? Yet the government is reluctant to provide a basis for the meanings of both terms and prefers to ignore it outright, the SCC judges have stated that they WILL provide definitions if the government refuses to get themselves involved. That is reality my friend, not some made up fantasy you have of changing the supreme law of Canada with a simplistic opinion.

[Riverwind]

They would prefer that the government at least make an honest attempt to define what aboriginal rights mean so they have a reference. But when they don't the SCC must do it for them.

It cuts both ways. The SCC has been pushing the government in many of the rulings because the government was taking the most unreasonable position. However, the pendulum is swinging and we are seeing the native groups taking the unreasonable position and you will see more and more rulings that limit the scope of claims. The SCC does not really have any choice because it knows that there is little political support for the extreme positions of many native groups.

[kengs333]

Again, that's ridiculous. You cannot "deport" people out of their homeland.

If people renounce their Canadian citizenship and act in a criminal manner, yes, they can be deported...

[kengs333]

Joseph Brant sold land within the confines of a sovereign and independent nationhood. Land was sold to farmers and labours in order to clear the land for future prosperity. Other lands were leased with the same intent. In fact the British also sold land for settlement with a goal of populating the wilderness. Doing that owever, did not diminish the Crowns sovereignty over the lands they sold.

So you're agreeing, then, that Joseph Brant sold off much of the Haldimand Tract, and that he did so legally?

Six Nations to this day asserts their sovereignty and there is plenty of evidence to support their claim.

Your contradicting yourself. All evidence that you can cite is produced by Europeans, and as you've already stated European records are not accurate and cannot be relied upon.

The FACT is that the legal history concerning ownership and sovereignty over lands began in 1757 with Mitchells Map and ownership was certified under the Royal Proclamation 6 years later (a very short time period in 8th century administration). By recognizing that the Mississauga were part of the Confederacy and the Royal Proclamation 1763 was instrument to obtaining land, the British had to have known (or ought to have known under the law) that the Mississauga had no more authority to sell Confederacy land than did the US to sell New York land. As such the Huron-Robinson treaty and the Williams treaty are ineffective under the law. Southern Ontario - almost all of it - belongs to Six Nations and has never been ceded under the requirements of the Royal Proclamation 1763. That is the law today as it was in 1764 and nothing can change that.

The Mitchell Map is a European document, and you have no real proof of its accuracy, do you?

So if the purchase of land from the Mississauga is not legal, neither is the Haldmand Proclamation.

Whatever the case, Six Nations is disputing land that is not legally theres one way or another.

The Wendat were in Georgian Bay region. The "Huron" -meaning North Shore Confederacy Iroquois - were in control of southern Ontario and were not realated.

You see you're getting confused. The Huron were situated in the Midland region, and were later mostly exterminated by the Iroquois. The Neutral were situated in the Grand River valley and Niagara Peninsula. They too were largely exterminated.

[Wild Bill]

Well, McHale got 10% of the vote. That's respectable for an Independent. I'm a little mystified by Finley's re-election, but I suppose the Carbon Tax had a lot to do with that, it being a large rural riding. The poll results should be interesting.

That's AMAZING for an independent! It's ironic that his votes of nearly 5,000 would have enabled the Liberal rival to beat Finley. In effect, he helped her win!

Still, his success is a powerful message to the "powers that be". All the crap talk that he was a wingnut who wouldn't get more than a handful or two of votes has been proven quite wrong.

There's an old political rule of thumb that one committed vote really represents a lot more who felt the same way but for some reason didn't bother. One "Letter to the Editor" represents far more people who held the same view but didn't write a letter themselves. McHale proved that a LOT of Caledonia citizens are VERY upset!

Look for Diane Finley to work even harder at hiding over the next term!

[kengs333]

That's AMAZING for an independent! It's ironic that his votes of nearly 5,000 would have enabled the Liberal rival to beat Finley. In effect, he helped her win!

Arguably, many people who voted for him would likely have not supported other candidates because none of them wants something done about it, not even the Liberal candidate. Also, it's to be expected that the Cons would get many votes given the size and demographic of the riding. Many are not directly effected by the situation in Caledonia, and probably don't fully understand what Six Nations is really trying to accomplish.

[AngusThermopyle]

Well I have to admit that I'm quite surprised at that result. It just goes to show that people are aware and do care about the bull thats being dragged on forever in Caledonia. It also tends to indicate that the towns people are not 100% behind six tribes on this issue.

Who woulda thunk it? From whats been posted you'd think that they hate him and support the thugs, I guess thats another point that wasn't true, or should we just call it what it is? A lie.