McHale running as an Independent in election

[kengs333]

Several candidates have already bitten the dust for inappropriate comments, signifying the difference between discussion board controversy and real politics.

Funnily enough, none of them are McHale. During an election, the media thrives on this kind of stuff, yet for some reason, they haven't (or can't) done (do) anything to McHale (yet).

Whatever the case; I'm certainly no defender of McHale. I think there may be more to him than he's letting on, so I'm not going to side with anyone who I'm not sure about. This is a lesson learned in part from my past support of Native issues, when I blindly accepted their racism and extortion tactics as acceptable recourses for getting "justice". Not to mention the overidealized and outright lies these people perpetuate about their "culture" and history.

[kengs333]

I'm not here to represent SN or any other First Nations. I am here to discuss the application to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to all people - you know the application of the Supreme Law of Canada, that which McHale abhors.

Interesting. Didn't you just say the other day that members of Six Nations aren't Canadians? Don't members of Six Nations when they show up in court (on the criminal side, that is) claim that Canadian (and Ontario) law has no jurisdiction over them?

Do you think you are doing any good here exposing your and McHales prejudices and ignorance towards native people? Why aren't you out on the campaign trail with your buddy? Oh ya I forgot. He's not allowed in the place to raise riots under the cloak of campaigning. And who in their right mind would want to elect a guy who has not only broken the law and is under bail conditions awaiting trial, but one who is abusing our social safety net by taking disability money destined not for those too laze to work, but those who cannot work? Maybe a magician is what you need right now to make it all go away. I think we might be able to conjure up a guy named Merlin to help you out in that department. I mean he is already financially supporting McHale. What is one more?

I have no connection with McHale, and you constant claims that I do just shows how detached you are and/or how you are trying to hijack, flame and lower this discussion to a mere mudslinging match. I believe you have been instructed again on how to conduct yourself properly, and I hope that you choose to abide by those rules. Some of the things you write make you come across as a complete fool and one can only hope that you don't conduct yourself like this in public.

[tango]

This is a lesson learned in part from my past support of Native issues, when I blindly accepted their racism and extortion tactics as acceptable recourses for getting "justice". Not to mention the overidealized and outright lies these people perpetuate about their "culture" and history.

Please expound upon this further to clarify what you learned.

Such bald faced accusations demand evidence, and not of the twisted McHale type.

Let's hear the evidence for the claims you make so we can make up our own minds.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[tango]

Interesting. Didn't you just say the other day that members of Six Nations aren't Canadians? Don't members of Six Nations when they show up in court (on the criminal side, that is) claim that Canadian (and Ontario) law has no jurisdiction over them?

Irrelevant.

As a Canadian, I expect my governments to respect our own laws.

[kengs333]

Irrelevant.

As a Canadian, I expect my governments to respect our own laws.

It's very relevant, in fact.

The Canadian government does respect its own laws when it has dealt with Six Nations and other natives throughout it's history. When Canada created laws allowing for natives to receive an education, it enforced those laws in an effort to provide for the betterment of illiterate Indians, yet now Canada is being criticized for respecting its owns laws (by natives who are now literate and educated). Canada had a right to provide Indians the same educational benefits as other Canadians--to deny these Indians an education would have been a violation of their fundamental human rights. Moreover, it could be argued that "elders" who wanted to keep their children out of school so that they could live lives as illiterate hunter gatherers were essentially attempting to deny these children their human rights.

[tango]

It's very relevant, in fact.

The Canadian government does respect its own laws when it has dealt with Six Nations and other natives throughout it's history.

You can't really believe that!

Can you explain, then, why native land claims are so often successful in the courts?

That would be because Canada did not respect its own laws.

When Canada created laws allowing for natives to receive an education, it enforced those laws in an effort to provide for the betterment of illiterate Indians, yet now Canada is being criticized for respecting its owns laws (by natives who are now literate and educated). Canada had a right to provide Indians the same educational benefits as other Canadians--to deny these Indians an education would have been a violation of their fundamental human rights. Moreover, it could be argued that "elders" who wanted to keep their children out of school so that they could live lives as illiterate hunter gatherers were essentially attempting to deny these children their human rights.

The residential schools were not about education. They were about slavery and abuse and genocide. In particular, the destruction of their communities was designed "to take the land out of Indian hands".

You are out of step with Canada, out of tune with reality. You'd better reread the apology delivered in June.

This is garbage. You are a looney toon.

[kengs333]

You can't really believe that!

Can you explain, then, why native land claims are so often successful in the courts?

That would be because Canada did not respect its own laws.

Well, no, Canada did respect its own laws, but Canada since the 1960s is a very different place. When a new generation comes along with a different ideological outlook, they go about changing what happened in the past. It doesn't mean that Canada at the time was not acting lawfully, it means that they the future generation disagrees with the laws or how they were interpreted.

The residential schools were not about education. They were about slavery and abuse and genocide. In particular, the destruction of their communities was designed "to take the land out of Indian hands".

You are out of step with Canada, out of tune with reality. You'd better reread the apology delivered in June.

This is garbage. You are a looney toon.

Sure they were about education. The Indians were taught how to read and write, and behave in accordance with modern Canadian society. The Canadian government realized that the standard of living for Indians was poor and one solution was that education was the answer. It was part of a wider initiative throughout Canada to make Canada a modern and literate society. A modern and progressive society cannot be created if some citizens can't communicate properly, if some of its citizens live in a constant state of moral depravity.

Please refrain from personal attacks and mudslinging.

[M.Dancer]

You can't really believe that!

Can you explain, then, why native land claims are so often successful in the courts?

That would be because Canada did not respect its own laws.

If we didn't respect our laws, how is it the claims were succesful. I would think a society that didn't re3spect its laws would just throw out the case.

The residential schools were not about education. They were about slavery and abuse and genocide. In particular, the destruction of their communities was designed "to take the land out of Indian hands".

Revisionism at its best, They were misguided attempts to westernize aboriginals. Many it seems are ev

en grateful for the opportunity to learn.

You are out of step with Canada, out of tune with reality. You'd better reread the apology delivered in June.

you will have to show where anyone aplogised for 'Genocide". Personally In wil just rack that up with the other hyperbolic claims of the professional victim class.

[tango]

Well, no, Canada did respect its own laws, but Canada since the 1960s is a very different place. When a new generation comes along with a different ideological outlook, they go about changing what happened in the past. It doesn't mean that Canada at the time was not acting lawfully, it means that they the future generation disagrees with the laws or how they were interpreted.

Sure they were about education. The Indians were taught how to read and write, and behave in accordance with modern Canadian society. The Canadian government realized that the standard of living for Indians was poor and one solution was that education was the answer. It was part of a wider initiative throughout Canada to make Canada a modern and literate society. A modern and progressive society cannot be created if some citizens can't communicate properly, if some of its citizens live in a constant state of moral depravity.

Please refrain from personal attacks and mudslinging.

Ahh yes ... the good old days ... when white supremacism was 'normal'.

I guess you guys miss that eh?

It wasn't personal. Just an observation. And a conversation I won't prolong.

-edit to add-

This is without a doubt the most depraved 'justification' for the residential schools I have heard yet.

Edited September 24, 2008 by tango

[kengs333]

Ahh yes ... the good old days ... when white supremacism was 'normal'.

I guess you guys miss that eh?

It wasn't personal. Just an observation. And a conversation I won't prolong.

Like I said, it's clear who you are. Why you're incapable of altering your MO to not make it so obvious is beyond me. You'd think that it would come natural...

[tango]

If we didn't respect our laws, how is it the claims were succesful. I would think a society that didn't re3spect its laws would just throw out the case.

Good point, and they did historically. However, it appears that our courts are now falling in line, with International encouragement, and interpreting formerly illegal actions of governments as such. I'm fairly comfortable with the Supreme Court now, and the Ontario Court of Appeals too. The local 'provincial' courts are still a bit ... well ... 'provincial' if you know what I mean ... all in the 'family'.

However, the courts did just throw legal claims out in the past. In fact, until the 1950's it was illegal, by Canadian law, for an Indigenous community to use the courts to sue the government for land or money owing. Then it was another 25 years before the government buckled to the successful lawsuits and set up its 'land claims' industry, which has been chewing up taxpayers' billions ever since, for the sole purpose of 'minimizing liability of the Crown' - i.e., doing nothing, and doing it very slowly, on our dime.

Revisionism at its best, They were misguided attempts to westernize aboriginals. Many it seems are ev

en grateful for the opportunity to learn.

you will have to show where anyone aplogised for 'Genocide". Personally In wil just rack that up with the other hyperbolic claims of the professional victim class.

True ... not the word, but the deed:

Two primary objectives of the residential schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.

Apology

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

And the 'Truth' is supposed to be emerging over the next five years.

Following the appointment of Justice Harry S. LaForme as the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and of Claudette Dumont-Smith and Jane Morley as the two commissioners, the TRC officially began its work on June 1, 2008. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is mandated to undertake a series of national and community events to allow school survivors to share their experiences and to educate the public about the schools' history and consequences. The Commission will operate for five years, but it is to deliver a report on historic findings and recommendations after two years. It is also to establish a research center by the end of its five-year term. Under the settlement agreement $60 million has been allocated to fund the Commission's work.

International Centre for Transitional Justice: Canada

... but back to candidate McHale ... I'm afraid I must have sidetracked this discussion ... oops!

Edited September 24, 2008 by tango

[kengs333]

Two primary objectives of the residential schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.

That's the basic intention of the educational system in general, otherwise Canada would be a balkanized disunited nation that would be hopelessly dysfunctional--if it would even exist. Also, as the dominant culture, Canada has the right to remove children from abusive situations where a child's education and development are at risk, and that's what was done. Canada still does this, as is evinced in the case of the Winnipeg "white supremacist" woman who had her children taken away from her. (Does she not have the right to raise her children with pride of her European heritage and a sense of national identity, like so many "red skin" Canadians are allowed to?) Also, there is a reason why not many people speak Swedish, Finnish, Icelandic, German, Ukranian who didn't immigrate post-WWII. So what makes you so special? Your skin colour?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

That would basically include Canada's immigration policy, which was devised back in the 1960s as a means of severing Canada from its British heritage.

It would also include the Iroquois who were known to conquer and assimilate weaker "nations"--that is, if they didn't basically exterminate them like they did to the Hurons, Petuns and Neutrals. Which raises an interesting point. Were the British not justified in a way in how they dealt with the Iroquois; they did essentially succeed in pacifying the Iroquois thus preventing them from commiting further atrocities. In other words, is the act of preventing genocidal behaviour an act of genocide in its own right?

[tango]

That's the basic intention of the educational system in general, otherwise Canada would be a balkanized disunited nation that would be hopelessly dysfunctional--if it would even exist. Also, as the dominant culture, Canada has the right to remove children from abusive situations where a child's education and development are at risk, and that's what was done. Canada still does this, as is evinced in the case of the Winnipeg "white supremacist" woman who had her children taken away from her. (Does she not have the right to raise her children with pride of her European heritage and a sense of national identity, like so many "red skin" Canadians are allowed to?) Also, there is a reason why not many people speak Swedish, Finnish, Icelandic, German, Ukranian who didn't immigrate post-WWII. So what makes you so special? Your skin colour?

That would basically include Canada's immigration policy, which was devised back in the 1960s as a means of severing Canada from its British heritage.

It would also include the Iroquois who were known to conquer and assimilate weaker "nations"--that is, if they didn't basically exterminate them like they did to the Hurons, Petuns and Neutrals. Which raises an interesting point. Were the British not justified in a way in how they dealt with the Iroquois; they did essentially succeed in pacifying the Iroquois thus preventing them from commiting further atrocities. In other words, is the act of preventing genocidal behaviour an act of genocide in its own right?

Why are you expounding on these things ... er ... white supremacism ... in an unrelated thread about a political candidate, whom you claim you don't support?

Are you trying to slime him?

I don't like the guy either but ...

[kengs333]

Why are you expounding on these things ... er ... white supremacism ... in an unrelated thread about a political candidate, whom you claim you don't support?

Are you trying to slime him?

I don't like the guy either but ...

Hmmm... yet another instance of you referring to me as a white supremacist. Does someone telling you the truth about your Iroquois ancestors necessitate you labelling that person a racist? Is the truth that difficult to accept? You need people to buy into your idealized myth about Indians that badly?

[tango]

Hmmm... yet another instance of you referring to me as a white supremacist. Does someone telling you the truth about your Iroquois ancestors necessitate you labelling that person a racist? Is the truth that difficult to accept? You need people to buy into your idealized myth about Indians that badly?

hunh?

I was referring to you expounding on white supremacism (above).

I have Iroquois ancestors? Cool!

I guess it must be clear to you now that you have me confused with someone else.

But again ... why are you expounding on race and racism and white supremacism - and frankly some of your views do go there, if you know what I mean - in an unrelated thread about candidate McHale?

Again I must ask ... because I am curious ... are you trying to slime him by associating him with those views?

Are you an opponent of his perhaps?

Edited September 24, 2008 by tango

[kengs333]

hunh?

I was referring to you expounding on white supremacism (above).

I have Iroquois ancestors? Who knew?!

But again ... why are you expounding on these things in an unrelated thread about candidate McHale?

So why do you expound your nonsense on an "unrelated thread about candidate McHale".

I was never "expounding" on white supremacism.

So now you deny that you are Iroquois? That's interesting. You're so keen on defending Six Nations, but you refuse to acknowledge your own connection. Are you that ashamed? I suppose you have every right to be.

[Who's Doing What?]

No that is true justice. We made deals with the natives centuries ago and staying out of their way while they hunt and fish IS the law - the supreme law of Canada - today. There is nothing two tier about it.

And no natives do not have rights that we do not. We can hunt and fish too. Only becuase we are not subjects of historic agreements with our governments we have more restrictions place on us.

There is no parallel in native people occupying their own land, standing up to development and illegal occupations. And since you seem to have been out of the loop of Canadian current events there are two recent cases where non-natives pulled the "same stunts" and did not get arrested. Try Googling the Cayuga Dump and the Ardoch Uranium mining - both of which were organized by non-natives and no one was arrested, tear gassed or hauled away. So your belief that two-tier justice exists is just a make-belief.

McHale, Kengs333 and you are all wrong. But that's ok I understand that your mothers think you were all a mistake too!

How can you say there is nothing two tier about one group being given rights and freedoms others are not?

LMAO

Googled "Cayuga Dump" in the first link I found this:

"We were to stand in solidarity with members of a small grassroots environmental organization and with members of Six Nations."

So much for your non-native angle. Just goes to show that you only need to have a few natives in your group to be given special treatment.

Anyway Keep reading the article it gets better:

They circulated local petitions and worked with municipal governments and local representatives, and they also started a legal battle with the MOE and engaged in numerous exhausting activities to fund that trial.

Notice how these people worked within the law.

Four years after starting their attempts to get the dump cleaned up, HALT lost their court case. Out of ideas, they took to picketing Highway 54—the main highway through Cayuga—where it meets with Brooks Road, the road leading to the dump. That was when members of Six Nations decided to take action, and to help the people from HALT to convince the Province and the dump operator to clean up the mess and shut down the dump.

So these people worked within our justice system until the Natives were involved. Could there be a motivating factor for them?

The connections between HALT and Six Nations are numerous, the primary one being a deep concern for the land; wanting to preserve its integrity and ensure that their grandchildren and grandchildren’s grandchildren can still share the same relationship with the land that they have. It is also the specific land in question. Cayuga, a town named after one of the Six Nations, is on the Haldimand Tract—a tract of land that sits 6 miles on either side of the Grand River. Kitchener-Waterloo sits on that same tract of land, and that is a big part of why AW@L was there. The Haldimand tract is land that, historically speaking, is still under Six Nation’s jurisdiction.

Oh Right, they think they own it, "historically speaking", ofcourse.

LMAO Again! Ardoch involves the Algonquin tribe of Natives. Do you have anything that was about non-natives, where the actions were taken by non-natives?

Otherwise you are just making the case against yourself and proving that when natives are involved there is a two tier justice system.

[AngusThermopyle]

From reading this thread so far its pretty apparent that Native activists and supporters are very much against McHale running. I have to ask, why? If he actually is a lost cause why such vociferous opposition? You would think they'd be encouraging him so they could laugh their asses off when he fails miserably.

Could it be that he does actually enjoy the support of people affected by this whole farce occuring in Caledonia? If that were indeed the case then it would tend to debunk the claims that the people of Caledonia support the Six Tribes network and their thuggish tactics.

Just wondering anyway since I haven't been following McHales activities. He does seem to piss off and scare a lot of Native people though. Must be a reason for that.

[tango]

He does seem to piss off and scare a lot of Native people though. Must be a reason for that.

You could stop at "piss off".

Racists do piss a lot of people off.

'nuff said.

But I for one am looking forward to laughing at his measly votes!

He's a parasite. I guess his friend is running out of money to pay McHale's rent, so he figures he'll try the public teat.

He actually thinks he might win. hahahaha

[AngusThermopyle]

He actually thinks he might win. hahahaha

Nothing wrong with that, in fact thats a big part of what makes the system work. For myself I think its a good thing that he can run. Our system is based on the principle of everyone having a voice, to muzzle him would be to repudiate the principles that we hold dear.

[kengs333]

Racists do piss a lot of people off.

which is why no one can stand Six Nations anymore.

He's a parasite.

Nazis used to use this term for Jews. Wonder where you picked it up?

[kengs333]

On the hypocracy front, a non-native was arrested for removing a Six Nations flag:

http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/440661

So the court system has time for this kind of stuff, but can't deal with actual lawbreaking members of Six Nations? Ridiculous.

[tango]

On the hypocracy front, a non-native was arrested for removing a Six Nations flag:

http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/440661

So the court system has time for this kind of stuff, but can't deal with actual lawbreaking members of Six Nations? Ridiculous.

Your post have a disturbing tone.

Not my cup of tea.

Edited September 26, 2008 by tango

[tango]

Nothing wrong with that, in fact thats a big part of what makes the system work. For myself I think its a good thing that he can run. Our system is based on the principle of everyone having a voice, to muzzle him would be to repudiate the principles that we hold dear.

I absolutely agree.

There's always a few interesting ones in every election, usually harmless.

And comic relief is always welcome, politics being what it is ... a race to the bottom

Edited September 26, 2008 by tango

[kengs333]

Your post have a disturbing tone.

Not my cup of tea.

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.