Wild Bill Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Just wondering what happened to the thread in 'Politics-Provincial' about Caledonia. It appears to have been totally deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Good-bye, good ridance... charter.rights had hijacked the thread, anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Good-bye, good ridance... charter.rights had hijacked the thread, anyway... Oh, he doesn't bother me. I've had him on 'ignore' for months. He's like the Toronto Star. Every page says the same thing: 'Liberals good! Everybody else is bad!" There's no point in buying that paper after a while, even if you're a Liberal supporter yourself. CR takes the same stance with aboriginals. I swear he'd excuse Charles Manson or Richard Ing if they were aboriginals! When someone is so partisan they go beyond the bounds of reality I just don't give them any attention anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 That's really too bad. If there's one issue that needs to be discussed now, it's Native rights and land claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 If there's one issue that needs to be discussed now, it's Native rights and land claims.What is there to discuss? The politicians won't touch the issue for fear of triggering a huge backlash yet we are saddled with years of ambiguous court decisions which have increased expectations amoung native groups to the point where they have no chance of being met. The only thing that will solve this will be a SCC decision that clearly restricts the scope of native demands and allows governments to balance the needs of the greater society with the need to accomodate natives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 So the SC telling the natives what's what will solve this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 So the SC telling the natives what's what will solve this ?The SCC has stated before that it wants to see accomodation and that two wrongs do not make a right. What the SCC needs to do is eloborate on what it means and place clear limits on scope of claims (this is what the Austrialia Court has done after it ruled that aboriginal title did exist). Placing clear limits on the scope of claims would allow negotitions to move forward. Negotiations are currently stalled because native demands are so rediculous that no democratically elected government could ever give into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 That's really too bad.If there's one issue that needs to be discussed now, it's Native rights and land claims. It's discussed TOO MUCH. And what we have basically is a group of people that have demonstrated a significant lack of concern for the law basically trying to manipulate the legal system into this country into balkanizing Canada into oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 It's discussed TOO MUCH. And what we have basically is a group of people that have demonstrated a significant lack of concern for the law basically trying to manipulate the legal system into this country into balkanizing Canada into oblivion. You are of course talking about the Canadian government since the only thing native people want (and the Crown demands) is that Canada comply. [68] On this final point I could cite almost 20 years of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, from Sparrow to Mikisew, or the eloquent Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2007). However, I choose to quote the equally thoughtful observation by the motion judge near the end of his reasons in support of the interlocutory injunction he issued on September 27, 2007: "I fully recognize that this case engages complex relations between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. I also recognize that respect for consultation lies at the heart of resolving such disputes even when certainty over the legitimacy and extent of the claim is unresolved. As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 and in Haida, supra, conciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and their respective claims, interests and ambitions is the fundamental objective of these negotiations." Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008 The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently instructed the government to negotiate as a requirement under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and now confirms that protest, occupation and estopple are legal avenues for natives to compel the government to exercise its duty to consult. It goes further in suggesting that third party interests may also be delayed and affected where the Crown has not properly consulted. And finally since the Supreme Court now sees accomodation to mean reconciliation it becomes clearer that Native interests cannot be sloughed aside - even where corporate or private interests are concerned. Your hate for native people is evident but that does not give you license to claim that native people, or Six Nations people specifically are lawless because they hold up development. It is their right and I'm sure it will become more intense in the future if the Crown refuses to negotiate faithfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I think that the Canadian people would like to see a process set in place so that these claims can be settled, at least to the point where Native Canadians do not see the need to engage in protest in order to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I think that the Canadian people would like to see a process set in place so that these claims can be settled, at least to the point where Native Canadians do not see the need to engage in protest in order to be heard.We could settle the claims tomorrow by handing control over all land and resources to the various native groups and allow them to levy taxes/rents on any non-natives living on "their" lands. Obviously, such a settlement would be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Unfortunately, what I described is not that far from what native groups are demanding.So governments are stuck. They can't conclude an agreement because the demands are too rediculous but they don't want to walk away from the negotiations and risk the political fallout. As a result, we are faced with the spectacle of never ending negotiations. IOW, the problem is not the lack of process. The problem is unreasonable demands and no process will change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 We could settle the claims tomorrow by handing control over all land and resources to the various native groups and allow them to levy taxes/rents on any non-natives living on "their" lands. Obviously, such a settlement would be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Unfortunately, what I described is not that far from what native groups are demanding.So governments are stuck. They can't conclude an agreement because the demands are too rediculous but they don't want to walk away from the negotiations and risk the political fallout. As a result, we are faced with the spectacle of never ending negotiations. IOW, the problem is not the lack of process. The problem is unreasonable demands and no process will change that. We could settle the claims tomorrow by handing control over all land and resources to the various native groups and allow them to levy taxes/rents on any non-natives living on "their" lands. Obviously, such a settlement would be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Unfortunately, what I described is not that far from what native groups are demanding.So governments are stuck. They can't conclude an agreement because the demands are too rediculous but they don't want to walk away from the negotiations and risk the political fallout. As a result, we are faced with the spectacle of never ending negotiations. IOW, the problem is not the lack of process. The problem is unreasonable demands and no process will change that. Wrong. Native people for the most part want compliance with the law - the chance to negotiate, approve and benefit development on their land, or on lands they have an interest in. Your simplistic point of view would quickly solve the problem of lands claims but create a brand new vigilante attack on native people and release the underlying racism that you all hold onto in secret. Negotiation is what it is. The government does not take it serious when they make a $25 million offer for a trust they know using their own figures comes to at least $500 million. Once they start getting serious about making honest and fair offers they will find settlements pop into place one by one. The problem is that the government refuses to come to the take with an eye for settlement. I know for a fact from a former negotiator that Harper's directive has been to stall talks at any cost, drive up the costs of lawyers and meetings until negotiation becomes a simple we'll give you $10 for what is worth $10 million. They are hoping that lands claims will just go away, or if they stall them long enough then they become someone else's problem. As long as they have this kind of attitude people like you and me will be stuck in inconvenient long lines as highways and developments are blocked while they take their case to the streets. The government so far has ignored the Supreme Court and refuses to move towards honest consultation and accommodation. You want to complain about delays I suggest that you take it to your MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Oh, look, CR is right back to citing from Frontenac, which he kept insisting was "Lovelace v. Ontario"... "Your hate for native people is evident but that does not give you license to claim that native people, or Six Nations people specifically are lawless because they hold up development. It is their right and I'm sure it will become more intense in the future if the Crown refuses to negotiate faithfully." No, I'm saying that they're lawless for a number of reasons, and I tink that they should be held equally accountable. But of course that would be "racism" and "racism" is a term you bandy about in your flip-flop agenda. Indians aren't given special rights, privileges, and status: "racism". Indian wants somethings s/he hasn't earned: "racism". Indian is treated equally and doesn't like it: "racism". Indian is accused of being a racist: "racism" etc. etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Oh, look, CR is right back to citing from Frontenac, which he kept insisting was "Lovelace v. Ontario"... "Your hate for native people is evident but that does not give you license to claim that native people, or Six Nations people specifically are lawless because they hold up development. It is their right and I'm sure it will become more intense in the future if the Crown refuses to negotiate faithfully." No, I'm saying that they're lawless for a number of reasons, and I tink that they should be held equally accountable. But of course that would be "racism" and "racism" is a term you bandy about in your flip-flop agenda. Indians aren't given special rights, privileges, and status: "racism". Indian wants somethings s/he hasn't earned: "racism". Indian is treated equally and doesn't like it: "racism". Indian is accused of being a racist: "racism" etc. etc. etc. Oh you're such a fairy in make believe land.....you sound just like Gary McHale for gawd's sake! THE LAW: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms MUST be complied with. NO regulation or domestic law can supersede the Charter unless there is reasonable justification. The Supreme Court of Canada says there is no reasonable justification for developing land that natives have an interest in UNLESS and UNTIL they have been properly consulted and their concerns accommodated in a conciliatory way. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in holding the government to their obligation to consult AND negotiate, natives have the right to protest, occupy and stop up development. THAT is THE LAW. Natives have no more rights than we do EXCEPT that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms restricts us and allows government to impose reasonable limits. WE screwed up our hunting and fishing to such a degree that we can no longer fish and hunt without extensive regulation and controls. WE screwed up the Atlantic fishery to such a degree that government had to step in and stop us from wiping out the cod. WE screwed up the forestry to such a degree that the government has to control and regulate forests in Canada. We screwed up! And so the government can impose reasonable limits on what we do, subject to our freedoms defined under the Charter. We don't have land and property rights defined in the Charter. Native people do have land rights protected because it was a promise the government made to allow our ancestors and immigrants to come to live here. Besides WE screwed up our care of the land and so we no longer have any right to take care of it exclusively. So now the Supreme Court of Canada says that natives can protest and occupy and estopple. THAT is THE LAW. And when any Binbrook skin-head pal rabble rouser shows up with his gang of violent Clownedonians to protest the protesters, McHale and his fairy boys have no rights, nor can they force, beg, plead or chide the police into doing anything. Natives ARE RIGHT within and under THE LAW. So yes your hate AND racism is evident. And trying to complain about natives breaking the law when it is in fact our government who is culpable is just dumb. But I understand your thinking...hate can blind you to what virtue there is in others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Oh you're such a fairy in make believe land.....you sound just like Gary McHale for gawd's sake! So now that the thread is deleted you can happily deny that you were totally wrong about Lovelace v. Ontario, and deny the fact that you ripped on ME for being right that the case was in fact Frontenac... The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in holding the government to their obligation to consult AND negotiate, natives have the right to protest, occupy and stop up development. THAT is THE LAW. Auto theft is also a crime. THAT is THE LAW, too... So yes your hate AND racism is evident. And trying to complain about natives breaking the law when it is in fact our government who is culpable is just dumb. But I understand your thinking...hate can blind you to what virtue there is in others. The government isn't culpable in the criminality of members of Six Nations. That existed before Ontario/Canada did, and is something that is born of the individual's moral failing. That goes for everyone, red or white, black or yellow... You're constant bleeting about "racism" is self-serving and hypocritical: members of the so-called "First Nations" community are among the most racist people I've encountered... Edited January 13, 2009 by Ontario Loyalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Oh look, the Caledonia thread was right here in the Support and Questions section all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 So now that the thread is deleted you can happily deny that you were totally wrong about Lovelace v. Ontario, and deny the fact that you ripped on ME for being right that the case was in fact Frontenac...Auto theft is also a crime. THAT is THE LAW, too... The government isn't culpable in the criminality of members of Six Nations. That existed before Ontario/Canada did, and is something that is born of the individual's moral failing. That goes for everyone, red or white, black or yellow... You're constant bleeting about "racism" is self-serving and hypocritical: members of the so-called "First Nations" community are among the most racist people I've encountered... Auto-thefts have nothing to do with Caledonia or the lands claims. Your attempts to link them together and then generalize that Six Nations are lawless IS racism....especially since I know in particular with you where it comes from. When you stop bashing gays and lesbians, women who have had abortions and Natives then I might believe that you don't agree with skin-heads and nazi types. But right now you exemplify what a typical racist does - promote hatred and bigotry at every opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Oh look, the Caledonia thread was right here in the Support and Questions section all along. Well I'll be danged, you're right. It looks like it has a life of its own and just wont die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted January 13, 2009 Forum Admin Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Just wondering what happened to the thread in 'Politics-Provincial' about Caledonia. It appears to have been totally deleted. That particular thread was accidentally deleted by myself. Thank you for inquiring about it, I have restored the thread to its original location. Sorry for the confusion, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted January 13, 2009 Forum Admin Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Seeing that this thread is off-topic, and I've restored the original thread in the provincial politics section, I'm closing this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts