Caledonia militia?

[Wild Bill]

What does garyish mean?

It refers to 'Gary McHale'. You can google him if you like. His family is from Caledonia and he has been a figurehead in some of the protests against McGuinty and the OPP for treating natives and townsfolk differently.

Tango and CR try to make him out to be some kind of KKK Grand Wizard, as an ad hominem way to try to pretend that there is no resentment in Caledonia and everything is actually peace, love and dove.

[charter.rights]

It refers to 'Gary McHale'. You can google him if you like. His family is from Caledonia and he has been a figurehead in some of the protests against McGuinty and the OPP for treating natives and townsfolk differently.

Tango and CR try to make him out to be some kind of KKK Grand Wizard, as an ad hominem way to try to pretend that there is no resentment in Caledonia and everything is actually peace, love and dove.

Hmmm.....I'm not sure how you came to that confusion Billy.

But since you brought him up, Gary McHale has been linked to a number of white supremacist groups operating in Canada. He does he deny their attendance at his rallies and McHale's literature and blog comments frequently appear on their websites as confirmation of their support.

If you think things are "peace, love and dove" in Caledonia then you must be an ostrich. Things keep getting riled up there because McHale and his mischief-making friends continue to stir the pot - the latest the subject of the OP. If not for McHale and company, it would be fairly peaceful and uneventful.

Edited June 29, 2009 by charter.rights

[tango]

Neither Mr Whitman nor Wild Bill are from Caledonia.

Neither one believes in resolving land claims according to the rule of law in Canada.

However, they do appear to support the white supremacist recruiting for an anti-native 'militia' that is currently going on in southern Ontario.

The readers can draw their own conclusions about Mr Whit(e)man and Wild Bill.

Gary McHale, and his sidekicks Mark Vandermaas and Jeff Parkinson are not from Caledonia, but they organize anti-native rallies there, ostensibly opposing the OPP for "two-tier policing": They claim the police charge non-natives for things they don't charge natives for.

However, to my knowledge, McHale is the only non-native ever charged at all in Caledonia, for "counselling mischief" in conspiring to create a roadblock. McHale is currently banned from Caledonia, but calling the shots nonetheless.

McHale's rallies in Caledonia attract white supremacists and neo-nazis like Paul Fromm, (Stormfront.ca/.com, Canadian Association for Free Expression), Melissa Guille (Canadian Heritage Front/Alliance), Dave Ruud (Northern Alliance). McHale welcomes US white supremacists like 'Winston Smith' (The Political Cesspool radio) on his discussion board.

McHale has incorporated his organization, has held a public meeting to announce the formation of a militia of "peacekeepers", and can now legally recruit members to that group. Though they say the militia will be unarmed, a legal militia can also be an armed militia, and likely will be before long, when the money starts rolling in from white supremacists.

Police and ordinary citizens across Ontario are very disturbed by this development.

Gary McHale, Mark Vandermaas and Jeff Parkinson are nothing but bad news for Caledonia and all of Ontario and Canada.

The way to resolve native land claims is according to the rule of law of Canada, leaving it in the hands of the courts and the police, not via a hooligan militia associated with white supremacists.

Edited June 29, 2009 by tango

[Wild Bill]

The way to resolve native land claims is according to the rule of law of Canada, leaving it in the hands of the courts and the police, not via a hooligan militia associated with white supremacists.

Really? I would have thought you'd say that the way to resolve land claims is by way of highway blockades and blowing up hydro transformers. Or perhaps by beating up old men.

[tango]

It refers to 'Gary McHale'. You can google him if you like. His family is from Caledonia and he has been a figurehead in some of the protests against McGuinty and the OPP for treating natives and townsfolk differently.

Tango and CR try to make him out to be some kind of KKK Grand Wizard, as an ad hominem way to try to pretend that there is no resentment in Caledonia and everything is actually peace, love and dove.

McHale is no "KKK Grand Wizard". McHale would never belong to anything he couldn't run himself. His thinking reveals a clear white supremacist agenda, though he tries to camouflage it for public consumption, but he wants his own supremacist organization with him totally in control.

So far there may be a dozen misguided and limited people in Caledonia who follow him like starved puppies, but his anti-native agenda was bounced right out of Deseronto and Picton. We can only hope that other communities are as wise to his ways.

[tango]

Really? I would have thought you'd say that the way to resolve land claims is by way of highway blockades and blowing up hydro transformers. Or perhaps by beating up old men.

The "old man" was in the process of crushing a teenager's windpipe.

If our governments were obeying the law, none of that would have happened.

However, our governments don't obey the law unless under direct court order, as they are now in Brantford - ordered by the judge to "consult and to accommodate" Six Nations rights on land in Brantford currently under development.

And that wouldn't have happened if Six Nations hadn't blocked the developments.

The City of Brantford went to court to get an injunction against Six Nations, and got a court order against themselves instead!

Our governments have to be forced to obey our own laws. Not much to be proud of, is it?

So, Bill, why are you are evading my question?

Do you support resolving Aboriginal Rights issues according to the rule of law of Canada?

Edited June 29, 2009 by tango

[charter.rights]

The "old man" was in the process of crushing a teenager's windpipe.

And his nephew had a 2 x 4 ready to clubber the kid. It is all a matter of two vigilantes who were told to stay out of the subdivision, who then created a confrontation with teenagers and ended up on the bad side of a melee. Had Guilteri not been there and obeyed the police order, he would not have been hurt.

Do you support resolving Aboriginal Rights issues according to the rule of law of Canada?

I think you are wasting your time with that yahoo since to answer the question, it might interfere with his belief in his own "privilege".

[tango]

And his nephew had a 2 x 4 ready to clubber the kid. It is all a matter of two vigilantes who were told to stay out of the subdivision, who then created a confrontation with teenagers and ended up on the bad side of a melee. Had Guilteri not been there and obeyed the police order, he would not have been hurt.

Absolutely, but he stayed against the police instructions, went to his truck and armed himself, lying in wait for the teens because he thought they might put a flag on the house he was building.

I think you are wasting your time with that yahoo since to answer the question, it might interfere with his belief in his own "privilege".

Oh I'm sure you are right about them. However, I ask the question so others reading this topic can see that some posters spout a lot of malarky about the 'rule of law' in Caledonia, but when it comes right down to the Canadian laws that apply to Aboriginal Rights and Titles, they really don't support the rule of law in Canada at all.

That's because they are not about the rule of law at all, but are just generally anti-native, and opposed to land claims entirely. They don't represent Canadians at all.

Edited June 29, 2009 by tango

[charter.rights]

Absolutely, but he stayed against the police instructions, went to his truck and armed himself, lying in wait for the teens because he thought they might put a flag on the house he was building.

Oh I'm sure you are right about them. However, I ask the question so others reading this topic can see that some posters spout a lot of malarky about the 'rule of law' in Caledonia, but when it comes right down to the Canadian laws that apply to Aboriginal Rights and Titles, they really don't support the rule of law in Canada at all.

That's because they are not about the rule of law at all, but are just generally anti-native, and opposed to land claims entirely. They don't represent Canadians at all.

Resentment and jealousy are some of the most misconstrued reasons for hating a group of people. I see a lot of that here.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

If our governments were obeying the law, none of that would have happened.

Actually, we wouldn't be here if SN had been able to manage its own affairs. Moreover, the government was obeying its own laws when it created residential schools and encouraged the Natives to become literate and civilized.

However, our governments don't obey the law unless under direct court order, as they are now in Brantford - ordered by the judge to "consult and to accommodate" Six Nations rights on land in Brantford currently under development.

And what if a judge rules that SN "protesters" should obey the law and not occupy private property? It's happened on a number of occasions but Natives have not respected this.

[charter.rights]

And what if a judge rules that SN "protesters" should obey the law and not occupy private property? It's happened on a number of occasions but Natives have not respected this.

Lower courts are reluctant to entertain Charter challenges (as you are well aware), so they often err in allowing injunctions that contravene a Charter right.

They are moving towards educating these lower court justices about having to uphold the Charter first before all law. In the Brantford injunction case the judge made the right decision by ordering that the parties go into negotiation - consultation. The judge also use the Amicus to present Charter, treaty and historical facts to the court that clearly indicated that Six Nations is within their right to protest and occupy land. The Brantford injunction bylaw is illegal, just like governments of the past created laws that were eventually struck down by higher courts.

Six Nations has a right of proprietary estopple in occupying land and preventing development without their approval. That is the law.

BTW are you still losing in court?

[tango]

Actually, we wouldn't be here if SN had been able to manage its own affairs.

Not true. Six Nations has repeatedly petitioned the government for an accounting of its land and related monies held in trust. The government has failed to do so.

Archival information indicates that Six Nations own accounts have always been in excellent condition, for over 200 years.

However, our government has failed in its fiduciary duty to properly account for land leases and sales accruing to Six Nations.

Moreover, the government was obeying its own laws when it created residential schools and encouraged the Natives to become literate and civilized.

That's just sick.

Get up to date, eh?

http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/TextofApology.pdf

Two primary objectives of the residential schools system were to remove and isolate

children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to

assimilate them into the dominant culture.?

These objectives were based on the assumption aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs

were inferior and unequal.

Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, "to kill the Indian in the child."

Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.

The purpose of the residential schools was the destruction of culture, destruction of peoples, (genocide) to facilitate the total takeover of their land.

"There is a need to raise the Indian to the level of the white man, and to take the land out of Indian hands."

Egerton Ryerson, 1847

Now what's your answer:

Do you support resolving Aboriginal Rights and Titles according to the laws of Canada?

Edited June 30, 2009 by tango

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Six Nations has a right of proprietary estopple in occupying land and preventing development without their approval. That is the law.

That's not how estopple [sic] works...

"Legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment."

It's interesting that you're arguing that this is simply a matter of property law.

[noahbody]

Absolutely, but he stayed against the police instructions, went to his truck and armed himself, lying in wait for the teens because he thought they might put a flag on the house he was building.

I think that's the oral history version courtesy of Mohawk Nation News. That version also claimed it was 5 on 2 and that the brothers were already inside. And Joe stood there and watched his brother take a beating. That's three lies in two sentences. There were three natives charged, not two. They were charged with break and entering because they broke in through the front door. His brother Joe wasn't even there. His wife was.

The teenagers/adults were climbing up on scaffolding and hanging flags on the house he was building for his daughter earlier that morning. When he came back to check on the house in the afternoon, they had broken in and were squatting inside.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

However, our government has failed in its fiduciary duty to properly account for land leases and sales accruing to Six Nations.

First, fiduciary duty is something that a superior has toward an inferior. In most cases, the latter means children, retards, or the mentally ill.

Properly account? Most of the Haldimand Tract was sold off by Six Nations when the province was in its infancy and the Crown couldn't enforce anything. If you really knew anything about Ontario's history you'd know that land speculation was a huge problem all over and illegal squatting was the norm well into the mid 1800s. Six Nations never documented its own property transfers until the Canadian government forced it to. So technically property within Six Nations was also being transferred illegally.

That's just sick.

Get up to date, eh?

Learn the difference between past and present tense. As I said, it was the law. In other words, the "rule of law" is relative.

Do you support resolving Aboriginal Rights and Titles according to the laws of Canada?

I believe that all people in Canada should be subject to the "laws of Canada" equally.

[Wild Bill]

I think that's the oral history version courtesy of Mohawk Nation News. That version also claimed it was 5 on 2 and that the brothers were already inside. And Joe stood there and watched his brother take a beating. That's three lies in two sentences. There were three natives charged, not two. They were charged with break and entering because they broke in through the front door. His brother Joe wasn't even there. His wife was.

The teenagers/adults were climbing up on scaffolding and hanging flags on the house he was building for his daughter earlier that morning. When he came back to check on the house in the afternoon, they had broken in and were squatting inside.

I think you've put your finger on part of the problem. The SN protesters, as echoed by some in this thread, refuse to accept that any native did anything wrong, ever and anywhere! So when we have a report like this old man being beaten and left with brain damage, the SN side has to be that it either never happened or if it did happen the old man was the aggressor and the young toughs were just defending themselves.

To me, that's why I find it hard to give any SN version any credibility. They always sound like they're spouting propaganda rather than just reporting the news.

If they had simply admitted that the old man being beaten was an unfortunate action by some young ignorant punks who weren't acting under any SN instruction the whole incident would have been deplored and then quickly forgotten. Instead, the SN official version has to be that the punks were actually heroes!

I first saw this sort of thinking on a newsclip from CHCH-TV, early on in the blockade. Some protesters had crossed their own lines on a bridge and started a hassle with townsfolk. On the clip was a young lady speaking for the protesters. I'm not sure if she actually was briefed beforehand because she didn't seem at first to know what had happened.

She was asked why the protesters had crossed their lines and started a hassle and she looked a bit confused. Then she denied that they had done such, quite vehemently. She was then told that the entire affair was on videotape. She answered that the tape must obviously be doctored!

That was when I began to lose confidence in any report or explanation from the protesters' side. The world is not so simple that one side can be the angels and the other only devils, ALL the time about EVERYTHING!

Frankly, they just sound like zealots to me! I'm not sure that the SN protesters will ever be satisfied, no matter what settlement is eventually achieved. Like the old joke, you could give them a cure for cancer and they'd bitch that it was just a hidden agenda to put their doctors out of work.

[charter.rights]

That's not how estopple [sic] works...

"Legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment."

It's interesting that you're arguing that this is simply a matter of property law.

"Proprietary estoppel" - not simple "estoppel"

The traditional version of proprietary estoppel arises in relation to rights to use the land of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. So if:

* one party represents that he or she is transferring an interest in land to another, but what is done has no legal effect, or

* merely promises at some time in the future to transfer land or an interest in land to another, and

* knows that the other party will spend money or otherwise act to his or her detriment in reliance on the supposed or promised transfer...

Proprietary Estoppel

But this is not in the context of simple property law - to which there are severely limited property rights under Canadian law. The application of proprietary (and some promissory) estoppel is justification for the protest, occupation and prevention of land under claim. Whether or not the claims are valid, the Crown has an obligation to protect the rights and interest of Six Nations. Failing to delay development, or to consult, accommodate and reconcile Six Nations' issues gives them the right to take matters into their own hands and stop all development that will interfere with their claims.

[tango]

I believe that all people in Canada should be subject to the "laws of Canada" equally.

... including these Canadian laws, then ...

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(' any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94)

...

PART II

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

...

http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=13096

The general principles of the duty to consult and accommodate were laid out in 2004 and 2005 by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida, Taku River and Mikisew Cree decisions. The law is now clear that the duty to consult is founded upon the honour of the Crown, which requires that the Crown consult with and, if required, accommodate the interests of the Aboriginal peoples when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal or treaty right and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

Edited June 30, 2009 by tango

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

"Proprietary estoppel" - not simple "estoppel"

The traditional version of proprietary estoppel arises in relation to rights to use the land of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. So if:

* one party represents that he or she is transferring an interest in land to another, but what is done has no legal effect, or

* merely promises at some time in the future to transfer land or an interest in land to another, and

* knows that the other party will spend money or otherwise act to his or her detriment in reliance on the supposed or promised transfer...

Proprietary Estoppel

But this is not in the context of simple property law - to which there are severely limited property rights under Canadian law. The application of proprietary (and some promissory) estoppel is justification for the protest, occupation and prevention of land under claim. Whether or not the claims are valid, the Crown has an obligation to protect the rights and interest of Six Nations. Failing to delay development, or to consult, accommodate and reconcile Six Nations' issues gives them the right to take matters into their own hands and stop all development that will interfere with their claims.

you're an idiot.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

... including these Canadian laws, then ...

I said all people in Canada equally...

which includes:

"335. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), every one who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated, or is an occupant of a motor vehicle or vessel knowing that it was taken without the consent of the owner, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. "

[tango]

I said all people in Canada equally...

which includes:

"335. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), every one who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated, or is an occupant of a motor vehicle or vessel knowing that it was taken without the consent of the owner, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. "

So you don't uphold the supreme law of Canada, the Constitution.

Thanks. That's the answer I was looking for.

You've been clear.

You are an anti-Canadian.

Edited June 30, 2009 by tango

[lictor616]

... including these Canadian laws, then ...

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(' any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94)

...

PART II

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

...

http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=13096

The general principles of the duty to consult and accommodate were laid out in 2004 and 2005 by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida, Taku River and Mikisew Cree decisions. The law is now clear that the duty to consult is founded upon the honour of the Crown, which requires that the Crown consult with and, if required, accommodate the interests of the Aboriginal peoples when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal or treaty right and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

Does that include forcible land seizures, trafficking in illegal weapons? terrorizing and threatening death upon canadians, assaults? arson etc?

who would dream to think that Aboriginal statues have more importance basic human rights!

[tango]

Does that include forcible land seizures,

They have the legal right to stop development on land if they have not been consulted about it.

trafficking in illegal weapons? terrorizing and threatening death upon canadians, assaults? arson etc?

No those are matters for the police. Over 100 charges have been laid.

There have been no firearms, legal or otherwise, used in land reclamation. The Confederacy does not allow it. There have been no arsons in any land reclamations either.

Arsons were committed against the Six Nations land reclamation twice, firebombing of a semi trailer and a building, by persons 'unknown'. (Was it you?)

You are purposely confusing issues to mislead people. While no doubt some of the crimes you list do occur on Six Nations, as they do in any community, some that you list are not associated with land reclamations by the Confederacy, and thus have nothing to do with this topic.

who would dream to think that Aboriginal statues have more importance basic human rights!

Aboriginal rights are Constitutional rights and carry the same weight as our Charter Rights.

That's what the OPP must balance in dealing with land reclamations: equal rights to the land.

Edited June 30, 2009 by tango

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

So you don't uphold the supreme law of Canada, the Constitution.

Thanks. That's the answer I was looking for.

You've been clear.

You are an anti-Canadian.

I'm not a member of Six Nations.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

There have been no firearms, legal or otherwise, used in land reclamation.

He said trafficking. As you know, five of your friends were arrested a few months back:

"Justin Aubrey Hill, 36, Tuscarora Township, with five counts of firearm trafficking, four counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm, three counts each of trafficking ammunition and possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking, and one count each of trafficking prohibited weapon, possession of a prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

William Errol Hill Jr., 27, Ohsweken, with two counts of possession of property obtained by crime and one count of trafficking ammunition.

Herbert Donald Tripp, 52, of Tuscarora Township, with one count each of firearms trafficking, unauthorized possession of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle.

Wayne Leroy Hess Jr., 37, of Tuscarora Township, with one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

And Catherine Rose Powless, 29, Ohsweken, with one count each of firearm trafficking and unauthorized possession of a firearm."

There have been no arsons in any land reclamations either.

Oh, no, of course not. Must have been lightening.

Arsons were committed against the Six Nations land reclamation twice, firebombing of a semi trailer and a building, by persons 'unknown'. (Was it you?)

"Was it you?" Are you serious? Making such an assertion is completely absurd. Yeah, I remember when the plywood shack aka "the embassy" was torched, they immediately accused "Canadians" of doing it without any proof. These same people howl "racism" should someone make that kind of accusation against SN

You are purposely confusing issues to mislead people. While no doubt some of the crimes you list do occur on Six Nations, as they do in any community, some that you list are not associated with land reclamations by the Confederacy, and thus have nothing to do with this topic.

Go look at the crime stats posted by the SN police (who incidently seem to be having some issues with police brutality at the moment. Many of the crimes happen on a disproportionate basis. Especially domestic violence (as you probably well know), drug-related offenses, and automobile theft. Moreover, much of the crime committed by members of SN happens off reserve.