Caledonia Needs Your Help

[Mr.Canada]

Sorry but I don't see how a group of people have any right to trespass on property that isn't theirs. A company has purchased the land, they may do as they wish with it. I hope that developers build high fences and hire armed guards so this mess will never happen again. These thugs aren't doing anything to add to Canada just to take away. Canada should stop payment on their monthly cheques until they stop disrupting the honest Canadian citizens.

[charter.rights]

Sorry but I don't see....

Well there is YOUR problem.

Under The Law we do not have property rights. Any builder and developer is fully aware (or ought to be) that they cannot do anything they want with the property. The can;t build high fences or even hire armed guards to protect a potential development. THAT would be against the law. You are advocating that developers break the law, are you?

A company has purchased the land, they may do as they wish with it.

As I said, the problem is not compliance with the law. It is people like you who are ignorant of what the law actually requires. Companies who buy land for development are required to comply with all numbers of acts, statutes, regulations and by-laws both before and after development begins. They cannot anymore than we can, do anything they want with the land. The must comply with the law which was put in place for our benefit. Six Nations has a Charter right to stop up development where it is occurring on land they have an interest in, be it for lands claims, or past agreement, or even for non-payment (proprietary estopple). They are perfectly within the law and those that oppose them are not.

While the Courts have long held that the Crown must consult with First Nations over development on land they have an interest it, more recently it has become clear that First Nations also have a right to stop third parties from using or operating on that land when the Crown has failed its duty. Until the Crown starts following the law and ignorant citizens like you start understanding and complying with the law, there will be uprisings and conflict. The problem isn't with Six Nations exercising their legal rights but with people like you who take offense at them being able to.

BTW there is still the issue with the $1 trillion trust that we owe Six Nations. Perhaps if you think it is prudent for the government to somehow economically disrupt Six Nations for acting within the law we could expect Six Nations along with other First Nations continuing to interrupt our roads, our development and our resource extraction on their lands that have never been ceded or that they have a right to continue to hunt , fish and removed resources for their own use. At the end of the day I think we would be in far worse shape than they would by reducing their annual transfer payments. Just look at what happened when the OPP shut the 401 at Deseronto, and when the Mohawks shut down the rail. CN estimates they lost $500 million in one day for spoiled and undeliverable goods.

[Mr.Canada]

And in your opinion the best way to get public support is to appear as hoodlums and thugs blockading roads, etc instead of having open dialogue. Holding a town hostage is not the way to get their views heard. If a another group was doing this same thing the police would haul them away and throw them in jail which is what should happen to these people. They must learn one way or another that this form of hooliganism and thuggery will not be tolerated in today's Canadian society.

The natives get their reserves with free housing, free education with University, free health care, free money every month, free cars, pay no taxes and the list goes on. They have it good and should be happy with what we've given them. But just like every special interest group the more we give them the more they want.

[charter.rights]

And in your opinion the best way to get public support is to appear as hoodlums and thugs blockading roads, etc instead of having open dialogue. Holding a town hostage is not the way to get their views heard. If a another group was doing this same thing the police would haul them away and throw them in jail which is what should happen to these people. They must learn one way or another that this form of hooliganism and thuggery will not be tolerated in today's Canadian society.

The natives get their reserves with free housing, free education with University, free health care, free money every month, free cars, pay no taxes and the list goes on. They have it good and should be happy with what we've given them. But just like every special interest group the more we give them the more they want.

Wrong again boy.

Most the natives at Six Nations pay for their land and house and hold mortgages just like us. Post-secondary education is a crap shoot with a limited fund making small grants available to lottery winners. The rest of them take out student loans and work hard to get an education just like we did.

The fact that protest is a way for native people to exercise their rights isn't just my opinion. It is the law as handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If another group was exercising their freedoms it is just dumb to suggest that people would be hauled away. Rather only people who violate the law get arrested and your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If hooliganism and thuggery is not tolerated in Canadian society then you might want to tell Caladeonians and Bratford people to go home. Since this thing started the hooliganism and violence has been brought with the outsiders and the racists trying to incite hatred. You weren't part of that were you? Demonstrations and occupations are peaceful events until the nutbars from and agitators like McHale show up and incite people to commit mischief.

And yes up until a year ago thuggery was acceptable in society when the OPP on a number of occasions violently attacked people at unarmed women and children with tasers and billy clubs, and pointed high powered weapons at women in Deseronto.

Perhaps you should take a aboriginal awareness course. You are certainly in need of venting your xenophobic anger and an education goes a long way.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Just look at what happened when the OPP shut the 401 at Deseronto, and when the Mohawks shut down the rail. CN estimates they lost $500 million in one day for spoiled and undeliverable goods.

So that's basically the intent of terrorism, to inflict not only psychological fear but to interfer with the economic workings of a given state. I'm not sure that causing that much economic problem is something to be proud of, given all of the money that is forked over to Indians has to be generated through (tax) revenues. Loss of revenue means loss of income and loss of income will in some ways affect the Indian's burgeoning illegal trade in alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. So all it does is reinforce the notion that Indians are a problem, one that may have to be dealt with by concerned citizens circumventing the protection afforded by CANADIAN human rights laws.

[Ontario Loyalist]

The fact that protest is a way for native people to exercise their rights isn't just my opinion. It is the law as handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If another group was exercising their freedoms it is just dumb to suggest that people would be hauled away. Rather only people who violate the law get arrested and your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Show me exactly where it says that Indians have the right to inflict economic loss, destruction of public and private property, and the threat and use of violence in order to "protest".

[charter.rights]

Show me exactly where it says that Indians have the right to inflict economic loss, destruction of public and private property, and the threat and use of violence in order to "protest".

There have been none of these CAUSED by protesters. Economic loss is a result of the Crown's failure to consult. In the case of DCE the developer was paid off. The remainder of the economic lass that hit Caledonia is a result of people like McHale showing up and trying to make a big deal out of it. Had he not involved himself there would have been business as usual...including Six nations shopping as they always had in Caledonia. However, since McHale invited the racism in people to the surface, Caledonia is still in trouble. No one wants to shop in a a racist town.

Violence has come from the outside of the protests mostly from McHale's cohorts whom he stirs into a frenzy and then escapes to the safety. ON one occasion he left a foray like a coward always does leaving his wife in the middle of it. His kind of violence is what the OPP are protecting against and if you noticed the majority of times that the police were out in numbers, they faced the Caledonians and McHale and his skin-head invitees. THAT is where the real violence comes from.

As to the destruction of private property I believe most of those crimes have been dealt with. It is not alright but there was little damage of any significance that was caused by the supporters of the occupiers.

[Mr.Canada]

Blockading the only road to town and not allowing anyone to arrive or leave and not allowing people to receive medical attention isn't a peaceful protest. It's disruptive and counter productive towards these people meeting their goals. This is urban terrorism at its essence not peaceful protest. I don't know why we as a society allow these natives to get away with this urban terror when no ther group would be allowed to do this. Enough is enough. Fantino for mayor of Toronto as well.

[charter.rights]

Blockading the only road to town and not allowing anyone to arrive or leave and not allowing people to receive medical attention isn't a peaceful protest. It's disruptive and counter productive towards these people meeting their goals. This is urban terrorism at its essence not peaceful protest. I don't know why we as a society allow these natives to get away with this urban terror when no ther group would be allowed to do this. Enough is enough. Fantino for mayor of Toronto as well.

Wrong. It is absolutely peaceful. Not only that is it acceptable for protest to occur, even if it disrupts a place economically. No one has a right to make money where it interferes with a Charter Right.

No one was held back from receiving medical attention. Stop making things up.

The terrorists are the ignorant and violent counter protesters that hide behind religion.

[Mr.Canada]

Wrong. It is absolutely peaceful. Not only that is it acceptable for protest to occur, even if it disrupts a place economically. No one has a right to make money where it interferes with a Charter Right.

No one was held back from receiving medical attention. Stop making things up.

The terrorists are the ignorant and violent counter protesters that hide behind religion.

This is just so outlandish theirs no way you actually believe this. So, by using your it would be fine for any other group to blockade any road it chooses and it should be allowed right?

Native "protesters" were throwing sticks at the elderly townsfolk, getting drunk and lighting fires, picking fights with the innocent townsfolk. This is peaceful protest?

[charter.rights]

This is just so outlandish theirs no way you actually believe this. So, by using your it would be fine for any other group to blockade any road it chooses and it should be allowed right?

Native "protesters" were throwing sticks at the elderly townsfolk, getting drunk and lighting fires, picking fights with the innocent townsfolk. This is peaceful protest?

No doubt in your delusional mind you believe such crap. It never happened that way.

In fact it were Caledonians who were throwing sticks and golf balls at the natives, and the videos I witnessed show the Caledonians drunk and disorderly yelling racist epithets trying to pick a fight with the Six nations people. Although I do understand that Six Nations eventually retaliated by bringing up a fire truck and spraying water on the raucous crowd.

The videos also clearly show the OPP standing facing the townsfolk (once again).

Do us all a favour and stop lying and making up stuff to make it sound worse than it was.....

[Argus]

Wrong. It is absolutely peaceful.

So you'd have no objection if I stood in front of you and refused to let you go past, right? That would be "absolutely peaceful".

Of course, if you tried to get past anway, I'd punch you in the month. But that would be your fault for your racist action of trying to force your way past me.

Beause I'm absolutely peaceful - so long as you do what I tell you. And any violence would simply be the result of your being obstinant and trying to hinder my freely expressing my rights of protest.

Oops, I punched you in the mouth again. But then, you're just a troublemaker. I'm really peacful, honest.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Native "protesters" were throwing sticks at the elderly townsfolk, getting drunk and lighting fires, picking fights with the innocent townsfolk. This is peaceful protest?

Yeah, and they also blame arson and acts of violence relating to their on internal disputes over illegal activities (eg., smoke shops) and blame it on "Canadians" in order to further their agenda.

[Ontario Loyalist]

There have been none of these CAUSED by protesters. Economic loss is a result of the Crown's failure to consult.

There's no logic to this argument. Nobody can legally inflict damage and monetary loss to person and/or property on the pretext that they--the person(s) causing the damage/loss--feel that they have the right to do so because the current laws don't suit them. There is a legal system in the country that is about as fair and impartial as one can get on this planet, and if the SN or any Indian can't work they system like everybody else to seek restitution, then too bad. If enough people start to see that the legal system is being abused by certain parties, there is always the chance that the majority could elect governments that would alter the laws in such a manner as to restore the legal system to what it once was. Wouldn't that be a shame?

[charter.rights]

There's no logic to this argument. Nobody can legally inflict damage and monetary loss to person and/or property on the pretext that they--the person(s) causing the damage/loss--feel that they have the right to do so because the current laws don't suit them. There is a legal system in the country that is about as fair and impartial as one can get on this planet, and if the SN or any Indian can't work they system like everybody else to seek restitution, then too bad. If enough people start to see that the legal system is being abused by certain parties, there is always the chance that the majority could elect governments that would alter the laws in such a manner as to restore the legal system to what it once was. Wouldn't that be a shame?

The tyranny of the majority rarely succeeds - especially within a defined Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So your argument that the majority "could" change the law is a fallacy at best and probably fits with the number of fallacies that you operate under.

Regardless the law is what it is. There are no property rights in Canada and so the Crown holds ultimate authority over the rights of citizens to use and hold property in tenure. Six nations on the other hand are not citizens and their property protected under the Charter as a result of the Royal Proclamation 1763 hold that they MUST be consulted

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.....

J.C. MacPherson J.A, Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008

When the Crown fails in its duty to consult and accommodate then in the case of Six Nations they have the legal right of propriety estopple - meaning they have a right to hold up development and stop building on contentious lands. Now with the recent confirmation by the Court of Appeal of Ontario backed by a Supreme Court ruling on the issue of contempt charges for an improperly use injunction process, it is apparent that injunctions will no longer be freely offered as a solution to protest, and when they are granted

"....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".

J.C. MacPherson J.A, Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008

So we are right back to where we were 20 years ago with the Supreme Court saying that consultation MUST take place. I have no doubt that further rulings will reinforce the right to hold up development and block third party interests where that consultation has not take place. And there is nothing that the majority can do about given that we are a country based on the rule of law - not your hateful and narrowly intended law but one that recognizes the rights of all people to co-exist peacefully.

And I agree with your first sentence. There is no logic to your argument,

[charter.rights]

So you'd have no objection if I stood in front of you and refused to let you go past, right? That would be "absolutely peaceful".

Of course, if you tried to get past anway, I'd punch you in the month. But that would be your fault for your racist action of trying to force your way past me.

Beause I'm absolutely peaceful - so long as you do what I tell you. And any violence would simply be the result of your being obstinant and trying to hinder my freely expressing my rights of protest.

Oops, I punched you in the mouth again. But then, you're just a troublemaker. I'm really peacful, honest.

You obviously have a misconstrued perception of what the protests were about. No one threaten violence. They merely told them to get off the land, remove their equipment or risk having it tied up as long as the occupation took place. IN the case of the Culbertson reclamation of the quarry the owner was given 3 months notice and refused to heed the warnings. Ultimately it took over a year for him to be able to retrieve a backhoe, a dump truck and some crushing equipment. The economic loss of use of that equipment was caused by him and no one else.

[Mr.Canada]

You obviously have a misconstrued perception of what the protests were about. No one threaten violence. They merely told them to get off the land, remove their equipment or risk having it tied up as long as the occupation took place. IN the case of the Culbertson reclamation of the quarry the owner was given 3 months notice and refused to heed the warnings. Ultimately it took over a year for him to be able to retrieve a backhoe, a dump truck and some crushing equipment. The economic loss of use of that equipment was caused by him and no one else.

So me and Argus could set up a barricade outside your front door and not allow you to pass to enter and this would be fine right. Well we'd have to say this is our land, then it'd be fine right? Oh yeah it wouldn't be fair if we barricaded the entire town and not just one house. That's how it works isn't it? You natives want to protest a building site so instead of barricading only the builder site you natives barricade the entire town. Yeah that's fair.

[Ontario Loyalist]

And I agree with your first sentence. There is no logic to your argument,

You're childishness is once again demonstrated. And I'm sure that you're quoting from Lovelace vs. Ontario, er, Frontenac is done without pang of remembrance about how much of an idiot you made yourself look like earlier in this thread.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Ontario Loyalist

[charter.rights]

So me and Argus could set up a barricade outside your front door and not allow you to pass to enter and this would be fine right. Well we'd have to say this is our land, then it'd be fine right? Oh yeah it wouldn't be fair if we barricaded the entire town and not just one house. That's how it works isn't it? You natives want to protest a building site so instead of barricading only the builder site you natives barricade the entire town. Yeah that's fair.

Your simplistic scenarios are humorous and pathetic.

No you can't block my door. YOU have no right. And since we don;t have property rights your attempt would be as lame as your argument.

Caledonia wasn't blockaded. Six Nations territory was and only after the OPP used lethal weapons against women, children and old people. However, I do remember a couple of blockades erected by Caledonians so perhaps that is where your mistake in perception comes from. And then of course we have the famous "don't move the truck - make them move it" incitement that landed Gary McHale in jail. Although I wouldn't consider a force of two a real blockade.

Edited January 19, 2009 by charter.rights

[Mr.Canada]

Caledonia wasn't blockaded. Six Nations territory was and only after the OPP used lethal weapons against women, children and old people. However, I do remember a couple of blockades erected by Caledonians so perhaps that is where your mistake in perception comes from. And then of course we have the famous "don't move the truck - make them move it" incitement that landed Gary McHale in jail. Although I wouldn't consider a force of two a real blockade.

Caledonia was blockaded? So all those blockades preventing the citizens from entering or leaving were just figments of our imagination? Is this you non-charter rights position?

[charter.rights]

Caledonia was blockaded? So all those blockades preventing the citizens from entering or leaving were just figments of our imagination? Is this you non-charter rights position?

You need a history lesson. All those lies you have hear McHale tell are getting imprinted on your brain.

Caledonia was NOT blockaded. The road in front of the Douglas Estates was blocked for a while but residents of Caledonia were free to come and go via the bypass, Argyle north or along Caithness east or west or any number of side streets.

Yes you have a vivid imagination that is bordering on delusional. Are you taking medication for that?

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop the baiting and insults. Just discuss the topic without making any personal attacks.

Ch. A.

[Argus]

You obviously have a misconstrued perception of what the protests were about. No one threaten violence. They merely told them to get off the land, remove their equipment or risk having it tied up as long as the occupation took place. IN the case of the Culbertson reclamation of the quarry the owner was given 3 months notice and refused to heed the warnings. Ultimately it took over a year for him to be able to retrieve a backhoe, a dump truck and some crushing equipment. The economic loss of use of that equipment was caused by him and no one else.

Ah, I see. So, he was ordered off his land. And if he refuses... well then they beat him up. But that's not violence! That's his fault!

So if I decide your house belongs to me (more likely your mom's house) and order you out, and you don't go, I'm allowed to beat you up and force you out and hold all your stuff as punishment for your obstinancy, right?

And that wouldn't be violent, at all. That would just be me exercising my legitimate right of protest.

[Argus]

Your simplistic scenarios are humorous and pathetic.

No you can't block my door. YOU have no right. And since we don;t have property rights your attempt would be as lame as your argument.

Who says I have no right? Because my skin is white? My great, great, grannie told me that we once owned that land. That's good enough for the natives so it's good enough for me, too.

The solution to this problem is fairly obvious. We need to find a premier with a spine. That's clearly not Dilton Mcdoily. Then fire Fantino and order the police to enforce the law. Arrest any natives who don't like it.

[charter.rights]

Ah, I see. So, he was ordered off his land. And if he refuses... well then they beat him up. But that's not violence! That's his fault!

So if I decide your house belongs to me (more likely your mom's house) and order you out, and you don't go, I'm allowed to beat you up and force you out and hold all your stuff as punishment for your obstinancy, right?

And that wouldn't be violent, at all. That would just be me exercising my legitimate right of protest.

Nobody beat anyone up. Stop with the simplistic inference. They simply locked the gate and prevented anyone from moving on or off the site. That's how easy and non-violent occupation protests are.