Caledonia Needs Your Help

tango · January 4, 2009

I'm not sure how it's racist to point out the fact that SN is the center of an auto-theft ring. ... But these people wilfully engage in these activities and bring upon themselves a bad reputation.

Racism 101:

It isn't racism to point out where crime exists.

It is racism to imply that the whole community of 24,000 people is involved in the crime.

Many nonnative communities, likely yours included, have auto theft rings.

Does that mean your local government and all of the citizens, like you, are criminals? NO.

Get the point?

And this has nothing to do with the topic, of course, since Six Nations' 'reputation' is irrelevant to the inquiry into OPP responses during blockades, etc., and has absolutely nothing to do with car thefts.

Fantino's alleged failure to protect the people of Caledonia, and a petition for an inquiry is the topic of the discussion.

Are you in favour?

Edited January 4, 2009 by tango

tango · January 4, 2009

Indian gangsters learn the game of the anglo italian gangsters .....maybe they are blackmailing each other? What else could it be that brings power to a stand still.

<_<

Charles Anthony · January 4, 2009

Some posts have been deleted from this thread because they advocated violence. Other posts have been deleted simply because they quoted and thus repeated the offending posts.

If you encounter somebody advocating violence or breaking the forum rules, please report it to the moderators and do not reply to the offending post.

Michael Hardner · January 4, 2009

Along with native leaders having his personal cell number exclusively; he also uses his position to support them in court against charges by his own police force.

Who cares if Fantino's cell number is known by native leaders ? Isn't that a good thing ? As such, the OP comes off as petty, and it causes me to discount the petition someway.

Charter mentions the law, but I recall that some court rulings were ignored by the protesters too. Isn't it wrong to stand behind the law only when rulings come in your favour ?

charter.rights · January 4, 2009

Who cares if Fantino's cell number is known by native leaders ? Isn't that a good thing ? As such, the OP comes off as petty, and it causes me to discount the petition someway.
Charter mentions the law, but I recall that some court rulings were ignored by the protesters too. Isn't it wrong to stand behind the law only when rulings come in your favour ?

There have been injunctions issued by lower courts that have been ignored because they are legally faulty. When they were appealed (as in the case of Lovelace v. Ontario) the Supreme Court not only found that jailing native people for participating in protests was over the top, but that the protests, occupations and prevention of any development on contested lands were entirely legal and reasonable. Native people have a Charter right to stop development and to delay construction on any site where the Crown has failed to fully consult and accommodate their interests.

The law has always been on Six Nations' side and Canada, it provinces and municipalities are now being forced to abide by it. The recent decisions mean that there will be more not less, protests and the OPP have no other option but to stand by and keep the peace. While they have stated in the past that they are not enforcers of injunctions based on civil disputes, unless the peace is breached at an occupation or protest, their only role will be to stand by and keep the rabble rousers like McHale, his skinhead friends and others away from the protesters. The balance of justice has tipped in the direction of native people across Canada and people like McHale are nothing but mice in a room full of elephants.

Edited January 4, 2009 by charter.rights

Michael Hardner · January 4, 2009

There have been injunctions issued by lower courts that have been ignored because they are legally faulty.

Were they obeyed pending the appeal, though ?

charter.rights · January 4, 2009

Were they obeyed pending the appeal, though ?

Doesn't matter. An injunction based on false law principles would be as if it didn't exist.

A lower court action doesn't over-ride Charter Rights, nor federal law and must at all times be consistent with both.

madmax · January 4, 2009

The other issues in this thread are all old.

I lost all respect for Ken Hewitt shortly after the Land Developer got their money.

Michael Hardner · January 4, 2009

Doesn't matter. An injunction based on false law principles would be as if it didn't exist.

CR,

If it doesn't matter, then why do you reference the courts at all ?

It seems odd for you to talk about the rule of law sometimes, and then disregard it other times.

Riverwind · January 4, 2009

It seems odd for you to talk about the rule of law sometimes, and then disregard it other times.

Exactly. His claims of legal entitlement are far from certain - if they were there would be no reason to engage in violance. At the end of the day this discussion is about how to reconcile a desire to correct past wrongs with the economic and political realities of today.

Ontario Loyalist · January 4, 2009

Racism 101:
It isn't racism to point out where crime exists.

It is racism to imply that the whole community of 24,000 people is involved in the crime.

Facts 101:

Stating that SN is the centre of an auto-theft ring is NOT implying that the "whole community... is involved"...

The are NOT 24,000 people living on SN; about half of people who claim to be SN do not live on the reserve. The figure of 24,000, I believe, is arbitrary since SN apparently doesn't want to cooperate with Stats-Can during Census time.

Many nonnative communities, likely yours included, have auto theft rings.
Does that mean your local government and all of the citizens, like you, are criminals? NO.

Well, yes in fact, you ARE RIGHT, my community does have an auto-theft ring, and it has been identified as originating out of SIX NATIONS. Of course there's crime elsewhere, and it's perpetrated by all sorts of people, but that doesn't change the fact that SN is the hub of a variety of organized criminal activities.

Are you in favour?

Go view the petition for yourself...

Ontario Loyalist · January 4, 2009

Doesn't matter. An injunction based on false law principles would be as if it didn't exist.
A lower court action doesn't over-ride Charter Rights, nor federal law and must at all times be consistent with both.

You have no clue how the law functions, do you? Aside from your subjective encounters with it, that is...

Ontario Loyalist · January 4, 2009

There have been injunctions issued by lower courts that have been ignored because they are legally faulty.

It's not for the individual, or a group of individuals, to take it upon themselves to interpret the law. If everybody did that, there would be no rule of law at all... (and before you start thinking that's would be a good thing, the rule of law is the only thing keeping SN in existance).

You might actually want to read the actual case you cite before you misuse it as a reference:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000.../2000scc37.html

Edited January 4, 2009 by Ontario Loyalist

Ontario Loyalist · January 4, 2009

What polls?

I repeate: what polls?

charter.rights · January 5, 2009

It's not for the individual, or a group of individuals, to take it upon themselves to interpret the law. If everybody did that, there would be no rule of law at all... (and before you start thinking that's would be a good thing, the rule of law is the only thing keeping SN in existance).
You might actually want to read the actual case you cite before you misuse it as a reference:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000.../2000scc37.html

An individual has the right to challenge the Crown and the courts on the basis of law. Where a court makes an incorrect decision it can be appealed or stayed. In the case of an injunction it is a civil matter underlined by the court. However, from the beginning the issuing of injunctions have been consistently over ruled by higher courts and as such protesters can accept the risk to ignore the faulty injunctions. The lower court justices could try to impose a penalty, like they did with KI6 and Ardoch First Nations by jailing those who ignore an injunction. However, since the Superior Court released the KI6 and Robert Lovelace citing that it was an abuse of the system to jail these kinds of protesters, the use of injunctions to defend corporate interests is pretty much dead in the water today. And with the SCoC ruling that First Nations have a protected Charter right to protest, occupy land and block development, it is pretty clear what the continuing action will be. The Crown MUST consult and accommodate. That is the bottom line and no one can develop lands under question until they do.

I see you aren't that smart either. That particular case was heard in 2000 and has nothing to do with the Ardoch blockade of Frontenac Ventures. The most recent SCoC ruling has not yet been publish but was reported just before Christmas 2008.

Do catch up with the law before you shoot your mouth off, would ya.....

Ontario Loyalist · January 5, 2009

An individual has the right to challenge the Crown and the courts on the basis of law. Where a court makes an incorrect decision it can be appealed or stayed.

No guff, but it's NOT for the individual to decide that they don't want to agree with a law because it doesn't suit them, which is what you are arguing.

charter.rights · January 5, 2009

No guff, but it's NOT for the individual to decide that they don't want to agree with a law because it doesn't suit them, which is what you are arguing.

Absolutely it is. Civil disobedience is our democratic right to elicit changes in the justice system.

Ontario Loyalist · January 5, 2009

Absolutely it is. Civil disobedience is our democratic right to elicit changes in the justice system.

No, civil disobedience is not a "democratic right"--it is something that is permitted to exist to a certain degree in free, modern western societies and is NOT the same as people interpreting laws on an individual basis as best suits them...

Ontario Loyalist · January 5, 2009

I see you aren't that smart either. That particular case was heard in 2000 and has nothing to do with the Ardoch blockade of Frontenac Ventures. The most recent SCoC ruling has not yet been publish but was reported just before Christmas 2008.
Do catch up with the law before you shoot your mouth off, would ya.....

Is this the case you're refering to?

Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Robert Lovelace, Paula Sherman and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario - and - Native Women’s Association of Canada

How you managed to abbreviate it to Lovlace v. Ontario is beyond me...

Perhaps in the future you should cite court cases properly, so people know exactly what you're referring to...

charter.rights · January 5, 2009

No, civil disobedience is not a "democratic right"--it is something that is permitted to exist to a certain degree in free, modern western societies and is NOT the same as people interpreting laws on an individual basis as best suits them...

I have cited the cases often. Lovelace v. Ontario.

The law is an ass. It has the burden of proving guilt and when the law cannot carry the weight of fairness, equity and equality. When you read up on Lovelace v. Ontario, you'll understand that the Supreme Court of Canada just sanctioned the use of civil disobedience to prevent development on lands in which First Nations have an interest and the Crown has not properly consulted.

Ontario Loyalist · January 5, 2009

I have cited the cases often. Lovelace v. Ontario.
The law is an ass. It has the burden of proving guilt and when the law cannot carry the weight of fairness, equity and equality. When you read up on Lovelace v. Ontario, you'll understand that the Supreme Court of Canada just sanctioned the use of civil disobedience to prevent development on lands in which First Nations have an interest and the Crown has not properly consulted.

Cite the case PROPERLY, such as this:

Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950

The case that you are referring to has a specific designation that should distinguish it from the one above, but I highly doubt that it is also referred to as "Lovelace v. Ontario"; unless you care to clarify, I have to assume that it IS this case:

Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Robert Lovelace, Paula Sherman and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario - and - Native Women’s Association of Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

CASE SUMMARY
Civil procedure - Contempt of court - Injunctions - Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Sentence - Is it possible for a party who has been found in contempt on the basis of a wilful and deliberate breach of a court order to mitigate the sanction for such contempt by collaterally attacking the order that he or she deliberately breached? - Do political protest motives justify the deliberate obstruction of private property and public rights of way, and should such motives be taken into account in mitigation of sentences imposed as a result of the breach of court orders? - Did the Court of Appeal’s application of the principles in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, effectively overrule jurisprudence to the effect that aboriginal rights exist within the Canadian legal system and not outside of it?

The Applicant, Frontenac Ventures Corporation, is a private uranium exploration company that holds a mining lease, numerous mining claims and several agreements with private property owners to conduct mining exploration in Frontenac County, Ontario. Frontenac’s lease, mining claims and agreements are all within an area of land subject to an Algonquin land claim (“the land”). The Respondent, Ardoch Algonquin First Nation (“AAFN”), is a First Nation community located in the Ottawa valley in eastern Ontario. The Respondent, Paula Sherman, is a co‑chief of the AAFN, and the Respondent, Robert Lovelace, is a member of the AAFN. In early 2007, these Respondents became aware of mineral claims of the Applicant on the land. In June 2007, the Respondent AAFN and other aboriginal and non-aboriginal community groups engaged in a peaceful protest and blockade, preventing the Applicant from accessing the exploration land. In July 2007, the Applicant commenced an action against the Respondents and others, seeking an injunction to end the blockade and $77 million in compensation. In August 2007, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the Applicant. These Respondents failed to comply with the order, which led to the Applicant’s motion for an interlocutory injunction, which was also granted. Again, these Respondents did not comply with the court order. The Applicant subsequently brought a contempt motion, which was adjourned following agreement by the parties to enter into a mediation in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The mediation eventually failed and the contempt motion was revived. Mr. Lovelace, Ms. Sherman and the AAFN admitted contempt. Mr. Lovelace and Ms. Sherman were sentenced to six months each in jail and fined $25,000 and $15,000, respectively. The AAFN was fined $10,000. The appeal against the sentences was allowed.

I think I'll pass on accepting your "legal interpretation" of the case, but I'll keep your words in mind the next time SN violently tries to break up a peaceful protest by residents of Calednia... you're selective appreciation of the law is most hypocritical...

charter.rights · January 5, 2009

Cite the case PROPERLY, such as this:
Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950

The case that you are referring to has a specific designation that should distinguish it from the one above, but I highly doubt that it is also referred to as "Lovelace v. Ontario"; unless you care to clarify, I have to assume that it IS this case:

Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Robert Lovelace, Paula Sherman and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario - and - Native Women’s Association of Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

I think I'll pass on accepting your "legal interpretation" of the case, but I'll keep your words in mind the next time SN violently tries to break up a peaceful protest by residents of Calednia... you're selective appreciation of the law is most hypocritical...

I see. You are stuck without words to respond with.

As I also mentioned earlier the details and the actual ScoC report has not yet been published on the internet but comes from early December media reports where the SCoC was quoted.

AngusThermopyle · January 5, 2009

I see. You are stuck without words to respond with.

Unreal, just simply unreal.

When shown something you dislike you automatically slide into denial while offering nothing more than your opinion as refutation. It appears that once again you have been shown to be making unfounded statements so once again you resort to denigration and wishfull thinking.

So predictable.

Ontario Loyalist · January 5, 2009

I see. You are stuck without words to respond with.
As I also mentioned earlier the details and the actual ScoC report has not yet been published on the internet but comes from early December media reports where the SCoC was quoted.

So in other words, you have no clue what you're talking about and are simplying repeating what you read in the papers and/or what your SN handlers tell you...

If there was a case called Lovelace v. Ontario then there would be some sort of reference to it in 2008 on the SCC website, but there is not--the only one dates from 2000. The case that I have indicated, and posted a case summary for, does correspond with your garbled ramblings about "injunctions". If this is not the case, then cite the PROPER designation for the case you think you're referring to.

charter.rights · January 6, 2009

Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Robert Lovelace, Paula Sherman and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario - and - Native Women’s Association of Canada

The appeal stems from an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008 in which the court made the following observations:

[44] In the present case, as in Henco, the competing interests include the asserted aboriginal rights of the Algonquin First Nations, Frontenac’s private interest in pursuing its exploration plan in accordance with valid mining claims and agreements, and respect for the Crown property rights of Ontario.

[45] And how are these interests to be effectively balanced? The answer has been clear for almost 20 years in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada – consultation, negotiation, accommodation, and ultimately, reconciliation of aboriginal rights and other important, but at times, conflicting interests: see R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388. The honour of the Crown requires that it act as a committed participant in the undoubtedly complex process of consultation and reconciliation: Haida Nation, Taku River and Mikisew Cree.

[46] Having regard to the clear line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, from Sparrow to Mikisew, where constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are asserted, injunctions sought by private parties to protect their interests should only be granted where every effort has been made by the court to encourage consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation among the competing rights and interests. Such is the case even if the affected aboriginal communities choose not to fully participate in the injunction proceedings.

[48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.

Since the appeal by Frontenac Ventures was denied by the Supreme Court, this ruling essentially legalizes protests and occupations as well as interference with private developers and citizens, in asserting native claims where full consultation and reconciliation has not taken place by the Crown.

Edited January 6, 2009 by charter.rights