Caledonia militia?

[charter.rights]

Extreme no, as it seems to be the standard position in our society, but racist yes.

Incorrect. But I understand that you are too self-absorbed to see that.

No, it is not the premise. An apology is just that, an admission of past wrongs. It is not a means to systemically advantage a given group in society. Same with lawsuits, legal actions happen between various entities (people, corporations, governments) in our society all the time, with damages awarded to one side and punishments to another. In all other cases, it ends there, not burdening the rest of society, which had no involvement in the events in question.

Incorrect!

The PM's apology was not a "free will" thing. It was part of an out of court settlement with the survivors of residential school, along with the compensation, admission of wrong doing and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will be coming in the next 5 years or so. His apology was not his eloquent invention, as it was filled with mandatory words of apology as part of their agreement not to continue with the class action lawsuit against the government of Canada. Obviously you don't know enough about native issues to have recognized that simple fact. Which is further reasoning that people like you should not have a say in how things get settled. Again, your being too self absorbed probably leads to your ignorance on native issues.

Exactly, get rid of all legislation and institutions that are meant to treat natives any differently than any other people. Then they will enjoy the exact same opportunity and equality as anyone else. Tax them like any other community, and provide services of an equal quality to them as to any other community. Or, if they are to be sovereign over their own land, and do not need to pay taxes, then we don't owe them anything either.

Incorrect again!

We owe Six Nations of the Grand - one native band - more than $1 trillion dollars for a trust the government of Canada holds on their behalf. Would you suggest that that in recognizing Six Nation's sovereignty we should just hand them back their $1 trillion or do you think we should just illegally absolve ourselves of our responsibility to them? And since that is only one band of about 500 across Canada, perhaps we should offer the same deal to them also? Oh and what do we do about the 1/3 of Canada that has never been ceded by First Nations? Should we continue to steal their land and resources without any compensation, cut them off any revenue and throw them to their own volition? We remove their equal access to opportunity through our own greed.

People like me eh? People like me have suffered under discrimination and racism for centuries themselves, people like me were stuck under the rule of totalitarian regimes in the old world while the European settlers displaced and killed the natives. People like me are not offered any preferential treatment in compensation for wrongs of generations past. And yet here I am, doing pretty well for myself. No government handouts, just education, planning, and hard work.

Yes people like you!

Self-absorption and greed are not about opportunity, social responsibility and self-sufficiency. It is about pay-back, irresponsibility and dependency. You depend on this system for your survival - the theft, the $ trillions in unpaid trusts and the undeserved access to land and resources. If you don't like the way things are run here then go back to your European despot and take your attitude to them.

Many Canadians believe your immigrant mentality is the cause of our problems here. I don't necessarily agree, but I can certainly in your case see where they are coming from.

Your ancestors maybe, not mine. You do realize that not all current non-native Canadians are descended from the settlers that were there to commit any wrongs against the natives, right? In fact, I would estimate it's a small minority. Also, as I recall it wasn't exactly them "allowing us"; the Europeans didn't give the natives much choice.

I realize that. However, your ancestry being an immigrant neither negates the long history here, or the lawful deals we made with First Nations, or our fiduciary responsibility we took on in return for our enjoyment of property and prosperity. As a Canadian you accepted that responsibility - to abide by the laws and customs of Canada.

So get over yourself. Either be Canadian and accept the inevitable, or remain forever an immigrant pain in the ass to real Canadians.

Why should their systems be equally well funded if they are not equally heavily taxed? Equal taxation, equal service. You get what you pay for.

Taxation does not pay OUR way. Resource profits, stolen native trusts and stolen native land allow corporations to make billions in profits each year, giving jobs to Canadians who in turn pay taxes. If we were really paying our own way we would be paying the natives royalties on their land and resources, and paying them their trust accounts in full instead of trying to hide and deny OUR responsibilities. Being self-absorbed as you are, you probably don't even want to think about it....you know....the truth! And the truth is the taxes are not - and have never been your money in the first place. That is why taxes are removed from the source before you get paid, before you receive goods and services and before to enjoy the use of your land. The Canadian tax system removes your dues from the employer, from the store and from the land before you get to enjoy them and only makes you think you had some part in it. You have it all backwards.

Yup, couldn't agree more. Treat them the same as any other Canadian citizen and they will have no greater barriers before them than does anyone else.

When people like YOU start treating them equally, then we will have a starting point. But since YOU are the problem, we must accommodate and reconcile the needs of First Nation people, keeping in mind our responsibilities as Canadians to all people including First Nations, to remove barriers and freedoms (such as us paying our debts) we have denied them over the centuries. And if we are going to change the rules then we are required by law to consult with them, accommodate their interests and reconcile our issues with theirs BEFORE we take action. Surely you can see through your self-absorption long enough to understand that our compliance with the Supreme Law of Canada, is necessary and mandatory in resolving any issues concerning a 2 century old blight on our Canadian reputation?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I don't care how many ways you try to justify it charter, any inequality based on race is racism - and racism is inexcusable.

Tipping the balance one way or the other is still racism.

If in the past I hired only 100% caucasians, and then to 'even out' and be politically correct I hired 0 caucasians, in both cases I am being racist. In both cases I am making a decision based on race alone.

So... it is quite clear who the racists in this thread are. It is those that want special treatment based on race.

[charter.rights]

I don't care how many ways you try to justify it charter, any inequality based on race is racism - and racism is inexcusable.

Tipping the balance one way or the other is still racism.

If in the past I hired only 100% caucasians, and then to 'even out' and be politically correct I hired 0 caucasians, in both cases I am being racist. In both cases I am making a decision based on race alone.

So... it is quite clear who the racists in this thread are. It is those that want special treatment based on race.

Incorrect!

In the past major corporations AND government only hired Caucasian males for management jobs. Women and minorities were excluded.

In many cases there is still a "old boys' network" behind the scenes in corporations and government, although "LEGISLATION" (providing incentives and requirements that tip the scales of employment towards women and minorities) has begun to balance that out. However, without legislation it is likely many people would still be fighting the old boys for management positions. THAT is racism and only by having the scales tipped in favour of women and minorities are we seeing justice in the workplace.

This idea extends into social justice, economical justice and legal justice as well. Legislation IS required to not only stop government officials, corporations and lawyers from discriminating against women and minorities, but they are required to give incentives and consideration to them in order to tip the scales in their favour. Otherwise they would operate at the status quo with impunity.

"So... it is quite clear who the racists in this thread are."

I agree that is is quite clear - and as clear as to who the Caucasian males are too! Self-absorbed white males don't hide their bigotry very well.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

You are pretty dense. Making any decision based on race is racism. I do not promote exclusion or inclusion of natives based on their race. They should be treated like every other Canadian no matter what race they are - just like my Lebanese supervisor, my Chinese superintendent, and my African American manager.

Why is it you presume that I am white? You must be psychic to see colour through an IP address.

So you are not only racist, but prejudiced too. You should seek help for your intolerances.

I guess to you All Canadians are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[tango]

You are pretty dense. Making any decision based on race is racism. I do not promote exclusion or inclusion of natives based on their race. They should be treated like every other Canadian no matter what race they are - just like my Lebanese supervisor, my Chinese superintendent, and my African American manager.

Here's the rule of law on discrimination in Canada:

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW / Affirmative action programs.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

And the UN ...

http://www.onlineunesco.org/diccion/ONLINE...crimination.htm

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '[3]

and wiki ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '[3]

Making any decision based on race is racism.

Not true. No matter how angry old heterosexual white men may be about the real rule of law in Canada, this argument for 'racism' holds no truth.

It's a subterfuge engaged in by white supremacists to denigrate and deny non-whites and other minority groups, and to suck angry old white men into their organizations.

White supremacists are actively organizing and recruiting in Southern Ontario right now, and populating discussion boards like this one to spread their sick messages, and to recruit new members from among the angry old white men of Southern Ontario.

Other Canadians are organizing to uphold Canadian values by exposing white supremacists and disrupting their recruitment drives.

From above:

Over 70 people from Hamilton, Kitchener- Waterloo, Guelph, Toronto, Six Nations and the Haldimand-Norfolk area travelled to Cayuga on June 23 for a rally that started and ended just the way everyone hoped it would: as peacefully as possible. “This is the most organized, prepared rally I’ve ever seen,” one OPP officer joked as the group of protesters handed out bottled water and snacks to one another.

...

Across the street from the Cayuga Lions Club Hall, protesters flooded the street chanting, “Go away, KKK,” and waving signs and banners that read, “With 6 Nations Against Racism” and “Canadians say NO to Anti-Native Vigilantes.”

“The Caledonia Militia, or Peacekeepers, and Gary McHale are strongly supported by openly Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups,” said Niki Thorne, a protester from Hamilton.

“This militia isn’t good for either Caledonia or Six Nations, so we’re calling for the Canadian government to resolve land claims fairly, swiftly and peacefully.”

So Chuck and Bill ... pick your side!

White supremacist wannabes can apply to Gary McHale, self-appointed grand poobah of the white supremacist wannabes of Southern Ontario, aka 'Caledonia Militia'. You can also apply through lackey poohbahs Jeff Parkinson and Mark Vandermaas.

In Caledonia, speak to Doug Fleming or Merlyn Kinrade, but keep in mind that these local dudes are just dupes of McHale and don't really know the full extent of what they are involved in.

You must supply your own pointy hoods and crosses, but you must NEVER be seen with them and you must NEVER question McHale's 'wisdom', also known by OPP as "counselling mischief", an indictable criminal offense, and the reason the courts have banned McHale from Caledonia.

Look at the excitement (excrement?) you have to look forward too!

But consider ...

There are many methods of peaceful, legal protest Caledonia citizens can employ, short of forming what amounts to a posse.

http://thespec.com/Opinions/article/590469

Edited June 28, 2009 by tango

[Wild Bill]

So Chuck and Bill ... pick your side!

Sorry, it's not so digital!

Just because I don't agree with white supremacists doesn't mean I must agree with YOU!

Frankly, from your posts on the subject I don't see much difference between your side and as what you portray Gary McHale.

You brand anyone who disagrees with your position as a bigot and/or a racist. Sorry! That's not just the ultimate in 'ad hominem'. It's the ultimate in intellectual arrogance!

Me, I believe that actions talk and BS walks. I disagree with you on the SN protests because of their tactics and their protest targets. So far I haven't seen McHale and others do or try to do anything that the SN protesters haven't done already.

I also have never seen a report of a McHale rally blowing up a hydro transformer, beating up an old man in a house under construction, beating up and robbing two TV cameramen, stealing a police vehicle and abandoning it later with a smelly 'turkey' inside!

Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg of what I've been told by people in the town whose word I trust, including relatives and some cops.

I disagree with anyone who does such things, whether native or non-native.

You can call me names, you can rail about 'white guilt' and you can trumpet your own version of history and law as if it came down with Moses from Mount Sinai. I truly just don't care!

Evil is as evil does! Race is irrelevant.

I say again, I would respect the SN protesters a lot more if just ONCE they did something that inconvenienced McGuinty instead of the Caledonia townsfolk!

Why not blockade HIS street! Why not knock out HIS electricity!

Or do the same to Chuck Strahl or Harper!

So far, all I've seen from SN is cheap shots at the innocents.

And for that you expect me to consider myself a white supremacist for not siding with you?

Frankly, such a position is just utterly unbelievable!

[tango]

Sorry, it's not so digital!

Just because I don't agree with white supremacists doesn't mean I must agree with YOU!

Frankly, from your posts on the subject I don't see much difference between your side and as what you portray Gary McHale.

You brand anyone who disagrees with your position as a bigot and/or a racist. Sorry! That's not just the ultimate in 'ad hominem'. It's the ultimate in intellectual arrogance!

Me, I believe that actions talk and BS walks. I disagree with you on the SN protests because of their tactics and their protest targets. So far I haven't seen McHale and others do or try to do anything that the SN protesters haven't done already.

I also have never seen a report of a McHale rally blowing up a hydro transformer, beating up an old man in a house under construction, beating up and robbing two TV cameramen, stealing a police vehicle and abandoning it later with a smelly 'turkey' inside!

Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg of what I've been told by people in the town whose word I trust, including relatives and some cops.

I disagree with anyone who does such things, whether native or non-native.

You can call me names, you can rail about 'white guilt' and you can trumpet your own version of history and law as if it came down with Moses from Mount Sinai. I truly just don't care!

Evil is as evil does! Race is irrelevant.

I say again, I would respect the SN protesters a lot more if just ONCE they did something that inconvenienced McGuinty instead of the Caledonia townsfolk!

Why not blockade HIS street! Why not knock out HIS electricity!

Or do the same to Chuck Strahl or Harper!

So far, all I've seen from SN is cheap shots at the innocents.

And for that you expect me to consider myself a white supremacist for not siding with you?

Frankly, such a position is just utterly unbelievable!

Oh ... I see you are not from Caledonia at all, Wild Bill, so you don't speak for them at all.

I never said "bigot or racist". I said white supremacists are organizing and recruiting in Southern Ontario.

Do you agree that the governments of Canada, Ontario and Haldimand County must resolve the Six Nations land claims according to the 'rule of law' of Canada?

Edited June 28, 2009 by tango

[madmax]

Do you agree that the governments of Canada, Ontario and Haldimand County must resolve the Six Nations land claims according to the 'rule of law' of Canada?

This is the only line worth measuring.. Ignore the 25 yahoos who have arrived in Caledonia and create such chaos, that I swear there intent is to continue to screw up any minute progress in negotiations or general dialogue. Caledonia is worse off because of these clowns, whether the people know it or not.

The courts support resolving land claims through rule of law, which, along the Haldimand Tract, requires government to consult with the Six Nations.

[Wild Bill]

Oh ... I see you are not from Caledonia at all, Wild Bill, so you don't speak for them at all.

I never said "bigot or racist". I said white supremacists are organizing and recruiting in Southern Ontario.

Do you agree that the governments of Canada, Ontario and Haldimand County must resolve the Six Nations land claims according to the 'rule of law' of Canada?

So I would assume then that YOU are from Six Nations, since you seem to speak for them? Or are you the only one allowed to comment?

Your words clearly implied that all those involved in forming a 'peacekeeper' group must be supremacists.

As for resolving things by rule of law, I have two opinions about that.

First of all, I would not accept YOUR opinion or that of posters like charter.rights as gospel about Canadian law! Perhaps when either or both of you sit on the Supreme Court I might change my mind.

The other is that I believe that the SN protesters broke the law. In such a confrontation, games theory would suggest that those who play by the rules are at a serious disadvantage. Frankly, that shakes my confidence that governments could have a fair chance in such a situation.

The question is moot anyway. When the government(s) refuse to enforce the laws, then how is your question relevant?

[tango]

So I would assume then that YOU are from Six Nations, since you seem to speak for them? Or are you the only one allowed to comment?

Nope.

I speak for myself, a Canadian who opposes white supremacist recruiting in Ontario.

Your words clearly implied that all those involved in forming a 'peacekeeper' group must be supremacists.

Wrong again. I oppose white supremacist recruiting in Ontario, and I would like to alert those who may be duped by them.

As for resolving things by rule of law, I have two opinions about that.

First of all, I would not accept YOUR opinion or that of posters like charter.rights as gospel about Canadian law! Perhaps when either or both of you sit on the Supreme Court I might change my mind.

The other is that I believe that the SN protesters broke the law. In such a confrontation, games theory would suggest that those who play by the rules are at a serious disadvantage. Frankly, that shakes my confidence that governments could have a fair chance in such a situation.

The question is moot anyway. When the government(s) refuse to enforce the laws, then how is your question relevant?

I don't speak for the Supreme Court, but you could inform yourself of the rule of law in Canada yourself, before you claim to make judgments of it such as those.

- What Constitutional rights are the OPP upholding?

- What laws have been broken, by natives or non-natives, that have not been investigated for charges?

Edited June 28, 2009 by tango

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

I never said "bigot or racist". I said white supremacists are organizing and recruiting in Southern Ontario.

This is typical of the paranoia and rumor that apparently swirls through Six Nations on a continuous basis.

Do you agree that the governments of Canada, Ontario and Haldimand County must resolve the Six Nations land claims according to the 'rule of law' of Canada?

Wasn't it Joseph Brant who was breaking the law in the first place when he sold off much of the so-called Haldimand Tract? Whatever the case, my guess is that you've never read a law book dealing with property in your life, and couldn't comprehend it if you gave it a try. So you shrill bluster and obnoxious hysterics isn't accomplishing anything other than making yourself look like a fool.

Rule of law sometimes means that you don't win, no matter how justified you think you are. Something tells me that you're not content with anything except exactly what you want, so appeals to the "rule of law" are completely disingenuous.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Nope.

I speak for myself, a Canadian who opposes white supremacist recruiting in Ontario.

What about organized crime on Six Nations? A lot of the crime in the region centers around Six Nations.

[charter.rights]

Wasn't it Joseph Brant who was breaking the law in the first place when he sold off much of the so-called Haldimand Tract? Whatever the case, my guess is that you've never read a law book dealing with property in your life, and couldn't comprehend it if you gave it a try. So you shrill bluster and obnoxious hysterics isn't accomplishing anything other than making yourself look like a fool.

Rule of law sometimes means that you don't win, no matter how justified you think you are. Something tells me that you're not content with anything except exactly what you want, so appeals to the "rule of law" are completely disingenuous.

Incorrect!

Joseph Brant lease and sold land within the Six Nations Confederacy sovereign territory. He didn;t need permission of the King to invite people to join the nation. However, the King was upset that HIS rule would come to an end if everyone abandoned Great Britain and to either join another nation, or choose as the Americans did, to form their own. So in the Royal Proclamation1763, and reinforced in the Haldimand Proclamation 1784 he made it illegal for British subjects to purchase land from any natives and insisted that only the Crown could legally buy up land, and only when and if certain procedures were followed that confirmed that the natives really wanted to sell their land to another nation. He had no control over what Six Nations did within their own territories but could control British subjects at will.

The Rule of Law means that everyone wins! Justice is a balance of needs. Yet neither the government, nor individual Canadians recognize and follow the rule of law. The calls that come out from certain racist abetting groups constantly try to suggest that the rule of law must be followed but then argue that that does not mean giving natives fair and just dues - financially or otherwise.

The present rule of law under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms means that natives must be consulted on any project, change or action that may affect their inherent land or pre-existing aboriginal rights, and accommodate their concerns and reconcile any differences to the proposed project or actions. That requires by law open and honest discussions, and the integrity to find a settlement that accommodates their concerns. Yet this very day, the border station on Cornwall Island is still closed, and no one least of all the Minister of Safety has even thought about meeting with, discussing the issue of armed guards and finding a solution that will harmonize their concerns. That is not a unique case but a systemic problem with the government. It is not an "Indian problem" since natives have deplored government, provinces, municipalities and developers to come and talk and discuss the projects. It is a problem with Canadians - and many here who confirm their belief - that naturalized Canadians are somehow above the law and don't need to follow annoying, superfluous laws. It is the belief that natives are second class in comparison to us, and so they should shut up, accept the pittance and hand-outs we give them and let us do what ever we want to their land and to them. It is racism at its worst. It is racism in denial and anarchy by the masses.

It is disingenuous to suggest that people wanting justice, fairness and compliance with the very treaties and agreements that formed this country, and protected us over centuries of war and conflict would somehow be insincere. In fact it is criminal to suggest that the "Rule of Law" is only valid if it protects us and denies them!

Edited June 29, 2009 by charter.rights

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Incorrect!

Joseph Brant ... denies them!

?

Edited June 29, 2009 by Mr. Whiteman Esq.

[charter.rights]

?

That is the kind of response one would expect from "Garyish" types.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

That is the kind of response one would expect from "Garyish" types.

que?

[tango]

This is typical of the paranoia and rumor that apparently swirls through Six Nations on a continuous basis.

Wasn't it Joseph Brant who was breaking the law in the first place when he sold off much of the so-called Haldimand Tract? Whatever the case, my guess is that you've never read a law book dealing with property in your life, and couldn't comprehend it if you gave it a try. So you shrill bluster and obnoxious hysterics isn't accomplishing anything other than making yourself look like a fool.

Rule of law sometimes means that you don't win, no matter how justified you think you are. Something tells me that you're not content with anything except exactly what you want, so appeals to the "rule of law" are completely disingenuous.

Well, I was asking someone else, but apparently you are not a clear supporter of resolving land claims according to the rule of law in Canada. How else would you suggest?

Only losers without sufficient argument, and trolls with agendas resort to attacking the poster, btw.

[tango]

What about organized crime on Six Nations? A lot of the crime in the region centers around Six Nations.

Lots of communities have crime, but that's a policing issue.

White supremacists are everybody's issue, if you oppose racism.

[lictor616]

http://www.thespec.com/article/583933

"About a week ago, Ohsweken resident Stephen (Boots) Powless, 44, decided to set up a smoke shack on Palmer’s land on Highway 6 just outside Caledonia to call attention to ongoing land claim disputes. He called up Palmer and let him know he was coming.

Powless was charged with mischief a week after a violent clash at the Stirling Woods subdivision in 2007 that left developer Sam Gualtieri with serious head injuries. Last year, the Crown dropped all charges against Powless and three other protesters."

This is a complicated issue for me. Apparently, Powless decided to set up a smoke shack on Palmer's land, claiming he had the right since the land was 'stolen'. Palmer had some talks with Powless and other protesters and claims he had an agreement from them to leave after a few days, having made their point.

Then Doug Fleming, a local resident began to talk about forming a citizen militia to protect the townsfolks and their property, since the OPP no longer performs that function in any native issue disputes. Powless immediately equated this to the "KKK" and says he'll NEVER leave!

Now Palmer blames Fleming for escalating the situation!

Now, we have to take Powless' words with a grain of salt. We have no way of knowing if he in fact intended to honour any agreement with Palmer to leave after a few days. Given what had happened to Sam Gualtieri it's possible Palmer felt intimidated. Or maybe Palmer is a Six Nations supporter and just wanted to help them set the scene for their protest. Who knows?

Still, calling Fleming a Klansman is totally over the top! It seems like the usual knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of a native position, trying to make non-natives feel ashamed and guilty for daring to disagree with the Gospel according to Six Nations.

Regardless, Powless is selling tobacco off the reserve, which is illegal. Of course, why not? Nobody is going to stop him! Do it long enough and the protesters will end up with a legal easement for having squatted on the land for a sufficient length of time!

I perfectly understand the feelings of Caledonians as to forming their own militia. When the OPP tells a frightened woman not to bother calling when natives are milling around in her front yard, confronting her husband, since they will not help her, what else are the townsfolk supposed to do? Just keep suffering in silence so that they don't embarrass McGuinty and Fantino?

Still, I don't approve. This is precisely the sort of escalation that has been obvious all along. It is NOT a good thing! It leads to disrespect for the law and its agents and vigilantism. It makes violence MORE likely, not less.

That being said, again I say that the solution is not to have the townsfolk suffer in silence.

However, if it's Palmer's land and he trusted Powless in an agreement then that's his right! He choose to talk out a solution and he felt he had one. If he later was proven wrong and then was sorry he would have only himself to blame.

What I don't understand is how Powless can hold Palmer responsible for what SOMEONE ELSE said and break his agreement! Palmer never was involved in any talk of a militia. For Powless to punish Palmer seems senseless, unless it's simply a case of "lumping all white men together".

I would have more respect for Powless if he kept his word to Palmer and then moved his smoke shack to FLEMING's property!

how many times have I pointed out to the fact that SEPARATION and non intervention make the best neighbors?

Diversity is a weakness... the sooner we realize this and act accordingly... the sooner we can return to civilization and a semblance of order.

Edited June 29, 2009 by lictor616

[Bonam]

Incorrect. But I understand that you are too self-absorbed to see that.

Insults are a poor choice of tactic in debate.

Which is further reasoning that people like you should not have a say in how things get settled.

Sorry, that's not the way democracy works. Everyone gets a say whatever their level of knowledge on any particular issue.

We owe Six Nations of the Grand - one native band - more than $1 trillion dollars for a trust the government of Canada holds on their behalf. Would you suggest that that in recognizing Six Nation's sovereignty we should just hand them back their $1 trillion or do you think we should just illegally absolve ourselves of our responsibility to them? And since that is only one band of about 500 across Canada, perhaps we should offer the same deal to them also?

Any agreement that ends up owing a group of 500 $1 trillion dollars is clearly a flawed and insane agreement to begin with.

Oh and what do we do about the 1/3 of Canada that has never been ceded by First Nations? Should we continue to steal their land and resources without any compensation, cut them off any revenue and throw them to their own volition? We remove their equal access to opportunity through our own greed.

If they are Canadian citizens (which they are, or should be), then they have the same access to the land as any other Canadian. How is their land stolen or lost? They can continue to live on it.

Self-absorption and greed are not about opportunity, social responsibility and self-sufficiency. It is about pay-back, irresponsibility and dependency. You depend on this system for your survival - the theft, the $ trillions in unpaid trusts and the undeserved access to land and resources. If you don't like the way things are run here then go back to your European despot and take your attitude to them.

You assume I am from Europe so that I can better fit your stereotype, without any knowledge of whether that's where I am from or not. If anyone is racist, it's you.

Many Canadians believe your immigrant mentality is the cause of our problems here. I don't necessarily agree,

Not necessarily eh? For someone so opposed to racism on the one issue you cling to so strongly, you sure don't seem so sure of yourself when dealing with other potential instances of racism.

Either be Canadian and accept the inevitable, or remain forever an immigrant pain in the ass to real Canadians.

Being a Canadian is not about "accepting the inevitable". Accepting the inevitable is what one does under a totalitarian regime that gives its people no choice. They just have to live their lives knowing that men might come in the night and dispose of them, or that their possessions may be taken away, or they may be imprisoned, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I realize that this is indeed the ideal state that socialists envision, where any who disagrees with their ideals just have to "accept the inevitable", but for now at least, that is certainly not Canada. Perhaps as a "real Canadian" you should know that?

Taxation does not pay OUR way. Resource profits, stolen native trusts and stolen native land allow corporations to make billions in profits each year, giving jobs to Canadians who in turn pay taxes.

Yes all our riches is all about that native land. That's why every country that has land is equally as economically well off as Canada. Couldn't have anything to do with the things we've done with the place. The land is only one part of the equation.

If we were really paying our own way we would be paying the natives royalties on their land and resources

Many companies do.

Being self-absorbed as you are, you probably don't even want to think about it....you know....the truth!

Your twisted socialist version of "the truth". No thanks.

And the truth is the taxes are not - and have never been your money in the first place. That is why taxes are removed from the source before you get paid, before you receive goods and services and before to enjoy the use of your land. The Canadian tax system removes your dues from the employer, from the store and from the land before you get to enjoy them and only makes you think you had some part in it. You have it all backwards.

Nope, you are fundamentally wrong. Were it not for the existence of a job, the income tax from that job would not be payed. Were it not for a person buying goods, the sales tax would not be payed. Were it not for someone owning land, the property tax would not be payed. But I can see how you'd like to twist the argument to show how the evil non-natives, the source of all that is bad in the world, actually owe all to the natives, the source of all goodness and wealth.

When people like YOU start treating them equally

That's exactly what I do. I don't give any special preferential treatment to any racial group. You, on the other hand, treat different groups differently based on race.

But since YOU are the problem

Indeed, maybe you should send me and other inconvenient "people like me" off to the extermination camps. That way we won't be a problem any more. After all, we should just "accept the inevitable" and go quietly to our ends, right?

we must accommodate and reconcile the needs of First Nation people

Indeed, the master race must be served before all others. Who cares what cost or damage this might incur to the "lesser races", right? We're just leeches and parasites anyway, we generate none of our own wealth, we owe all to the glorious natives, by who's generosity alone we manage to live in this world. Makes total sense, got it.

Seriously man, look in the mirror and perhaps one day you will realize who the racist here is.

[Oleg Bach]

The trend these days if you capture a crook attempting to rob you - they charge you with kidnap..go figure.

[charter.rights]

Sorry, that's not the way democracy works. Everyone gets a say whatever their level of knowledge on any particular issue.

Moot point since Canada is not a participatory system. Individual voices have no play in the day to day management of the country or its laws. So the Supreme Law of Canada, is not subject to petty opinions like yours.

Any agreement that ends up owing a group of 500 $1 trillion dollars is clearly a flawed and insane agreement to begin with.

It isn't an "agreement" but a trust and is not subject to modification. Whether you think it is flawed or insane has no bearing on the legal responsibility we have to pay it all back.

If they are Canadian citizens (which they are, or should be), then they have the same access to the land as any other Canadian. How is their land stolen or lost? They can continue to live on it.

We don't have "access" to land, nor do we have protected rights over land. All land in Canada proper either belongs outright to the respective First Nations whose territories we settled upon, or we have access for our use on the basis of treaties and agreements enforceable by the courts. That is the rule of law, which as a Canadian you must accept.Treaties cannot be abandoned on a whim. They are legacy documents that survive as long as the binding nations that signed them exist. Of course they could be renegotiated, but that would require consultation with First Nations, accommodation of their concerns and honest reconciliation of their issues - something the government refuses to do. However, they cannot be ignored just because a minority of people like you think natives are getting something you are not.

You assume I am from Europe so that I can better fit your stereotype, without any knowledge of whether that's where I am from or not. If anyone is racist, it's you.

Having trouble keeping up with your lies?

People like me eh? People like me have suffered under discrimination and racism for centuries themselves, people like me were stuck under the rule of totalitarian regimes in the old world while the European settlers displaced and killed the natives. People like me are not offered any preferential treatment in compensation for wrongs of generations past. And yet here I am, doing pretty well for myself. No government handouts, just education, planning, and hard work.

"Old country" refers to Europe or at least eastern European, no? I have assumed nothing. Perhaps your language isn't very good.

Being a Canadian is not about "accepting the inevitable". Accepting the inevitable is what one does under a totalitarian regime that gives its people no choice. They just have to live their lives knowing that men might come in the night and dispose of them, or that their possessions may be taken away, or they may be imprisoned, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I realize that this is indeed the ideal state that socialists envision, where any who disagrees with their ideals just have to "accept the inevitable", but for now at least, that is certainly not Canada. Perhaps as a "real Canadian" you should know that?

Incorrect! Being Canadian means accepting that we live by the rule of law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides:

1. That all treaties and agreements with First Nations are valid,

2. That before we do anything that may affect those rights guaranteed under the Charter, we must consult with First Nations, accommodate their needs and issues and reconcile their interests with ours,

3. That no other right contained in the Charter can reduce or impinge on inherent aboriginal rights or treaty rights, either existing or acquired in the future, and

4. That we can create laws in our Parliament that offset the inequities suffered by First Nations as a means to creating equalities in society.

That is the inevitable! It is the inevitibility of the "rule of law"!

Nope, you are fundamentally wrong. Were it not for the existence of a job, the income tax from that job would not be payed. Were it not for a person buying goods, the sales tax would not be payed. Were it not for someone owning land, the property tax would not be payed. But I can see how you'd like to twist the argument to show how the evil non-natives, the source of all that is bad in the world, actually owe all to the natives, the source of all goodness and wealth.

All wealth in this country is originally derived from land and resources. Remove those from our economy and there are no jobs. Honouring the treaties and agreements which brought people here to form a country called Canada, is required by law.

That's exactly what I do. I don't give any special preferential treatment to any racial group. You, on the other hand, treat different groups differently based on race.

You provide a perfect example of your racism here.

The fact is that you have continued to try to make this into an "us versus them" issue, dismissing First Nation claims to land and money that we collectively owe them. This has nothing to do with race as a basis to those agreements. It has to to with international protocols and nation to nation business. Treaties like the Jay Treaty made with the US provide the very basis for our claim to a border between our two countries. If we choose to ignore it, then there is no reason why the US wouldn't simply move the border north where they felt it was convenient.

Indeed, maybe you should send me and other inconvenient "people like me" off to the extermination camps. That way we won't be a problem any more. After all, we should just "accept the inevitable" and go quietly to our ends, right?

Now this is another interesting statement coming from you. It exemplifies and reinforces your racist viewpoints in that you are definitely decry the the "poor white male" position. Of course it has no basis in reality nor does it describe anywhere near the points I am making. And it is interesting that you would fall back into that kind of anti-semetic talk too, given that it was the Europeans that came here that created residential schools and the continuing genocidal policies we have imposed on native people. I pity your immature thinking.

I will give you the last word since this is a classic racist comment:

Indeed, the master race must be served before all others. Who cares what cost or damage this might incur to the "lesser races", right? We're just leeches and parasites anyway, we generate none of our own wealth, we owe all to the glorious natives, by who's generosity alone we manage to live in this world. Makes total sense, got it.

Edited June 29, 2009 by charter.rights

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Well, I was asking someone else, but apparently you are not a clear supporter of resolving land claims according to the rule of law in Canada. How else would you suggest?

Only losers without sufficient argument, and trolls with agendas resort to attacking the poster, btw.

You mean something such as this, for example?

"That is the kind of response one would expect from "Garyish" types."

[Oleg Bach]

You mean something such as this, for example?

"That is the kind of response one would expect from "Garyish" types."

What does garyish mean?

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Lots of communities have crime, but that's a policing issue.

No. We're talking organized crime and organized crime specifically on Six Nations. There is a much higher rate of crime in the surrounding communities because organized crime flourishes on Six Nations. The majority of recovered stolen cars from the region are found on Six Nations.

White supremacists are everybody's issue, if you oppose racism.

Natives are blatantly racist, so let's see you admit that and clearly state that you're opposed to their racism as well... The number of true "white supremacists" in Ontario is a small fraction of the population of Six Nations.