Caledonia The town That Law Forgot

[Shwa]

You are full of Sh** Bill.

The barricades they made were erected to protect the women and children and old people that the OPP tried to club, taser and point high powered weapons at.

No one knows who blew up the transformer. It could easily have been the OPP provocateurs. They have done such things before.

There was no tearing down of an electrical tower. That is a lie. Six Nations mover the tower onto the road that had been waiting on a transmission line that was crossing their territory.

No one was blocked from their homes. The people that lived on the Sixth Line could come and go as they pleased and the only change was that the OPP agreed that Six Nations Police would police their home.

There were no ATVs tearing up peoples backyard either. What did occur is that Six Nations security patrolled the buffer zone between DCE and the residents and did shine lights into back yards where we all know eggs, golf balls and rocks were being thrown from.

So quit you lying.

Regardless of the specifics or what Blatchford may or may not write about; I understand the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates was an escalation of a set of previously failed proceses. WB says that the protest should have been directed "at those individuals directly responsible at least at those with the specific ability to satisfy your demands." If there were failed negotiations prior to the occupation it would seem that the occupation was direclty aimed at those with the specific ability to meet their demands since the current proceses indicate that the demands are being satisfied. Further, I think occupying the site and preventing the heavy earth moving equipment from action targeted the developer directly.

However, comparing the Six Nations protest tactics to the KKK, well, that's more than a little off base.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Shwa

[charter.rights]

Regardless of the specifics or what Blatchford may or may not write about; I understand the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates was an escalation of a set of previously failed proceses. WB says that the protest should have been directed "at those individuals directly responsible at least at those with the specific ability to satisfy your demands." If there were failed negotiations prior to the occupation it would seem that the occupation was direclty aimed at those with the specific ability to meet their demands since the current proceses indicate that the demands are being satisfied. Further, I think occupying the site and preventing the heavy earth moving equipment from action targeted the developer directly.

However, comparing the Six Nations protest tactics to the KKK, well, that's more than a little off base.

I agree. The one action taken by protesters was to stop the development and they had a legal right of proprietary estoppel to do that. What followed was also a failure in that the OPP attempted to use force to issue a civil injunction. Two years later the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that such an action was illegal. And in fact previous to the occupation the Ipperwash Inquiry had already recommended that the OPP change its approach to the way they approached aboriginal land claim occupations and they ignored that. Lastly Haldimand County failed its constitutional duty to initiate consultation with Six Nations despite the fact that Six Nations had been objecting to the development for over two years saying they had a claim to Caledonia and the surrounding area as part of the Haldimand Tract.

What is disconcerting is that it is bad enough that almost all Canadian history is based on myth and the legal magic that they somehow took jurisdiction over Six Nations and their lands, but when people come out and make up lies about what really happened just 4 years ago, then it simply adds fuel to the ignorance and racism that underlies Canadian society.

[Argus]

I post about facts. You on the other hand, like Blatchford try to pass off your opinion as fact. Nice try though. You lose.

You post your own twisted, bigoted fiction.

[charter.rights]

You post your own twisted, bigoted fiction.

Not at all. I have all references,historical facts, Supreme Court rulings and legal opinions to back up everything I claim. There is nothing that is fiction except the Canadian version of history. It is purely a fabrication and in most case outright lies - just like WB's lies - that serve to advance colonialism against the natives.

Get a grip. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[Wild Bill]

Regardless of the specifics or what Blatchford may or may not write about; I understand the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates was an escalation of a set of previously failed proceses. WB says that the protest should have been directed "at those individuals directly responsible at least at those with the specific ability to satisfy your demands." If there were failed negotiations prior to the occupation it would seem that the occupation was direclty aimed at those with the specific ability to meet their demands since the current proceses indicate that the demands are being satisfied. Further, I think occupying the site and preventing the heavy earth moving equipment from action targeted the developer directly.

However, comparing the Six Nations protest tactics to the KKK, well, that's more than a little off base.

Your history differs with what appeared in the papers at the time. It was reported that the SN council had been notified of the building permit for the Douglas Creek Estates. It was only when the project was long underway and a number of houses nearing completion that suddenly a protest sprang up!

Both Caledonia council and the developer were surprised, since they claimed they had notified the proper SN authority and had received no objection.

Be that as it may, taking action against that specific site would seem logical. However, that's not the way it went.

Here's the Wiki version, which seems mostly non-partisan:

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

"April 20: The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), more than three weeks after the motions judge’s second contempt order, the OPP went to Douglas Creek Estates and arrested twenty-one persons under the warrant of arrest. Later that day, several hundred natives from a nearby reserve, some of whom were masked and were armed with bats, axes and hockey sticks, returned to the site. The police retreated and the natives reclaimed the site and set up roadblocks along the access street. During the evening, the protesters put hundreds of tires across the highway, doused them with gasoline and lit them. In addition, they set fire to a wooden bridge over railway tracks. Firefighters were unable to extinguish both fires because the fire chief stated that he did not believe the OPP could protect his men if they attempted to put out the fires against native orders. Several boxes of documents from the land developer's office inside a model home, were stolen and tossed into a bonfire. [2][3] A short time later, a hydro substation was destroyed when a truck crashed through its gates and was set on fire, causing a blackout and $1 million in damages."

If you google and read more you will find that the protesters expanded their area of protests beyond the Douglas Creek Estates. They blocked a bridge which provided the major access into the community. They blockaded a regional highway. The destroyed electrical substation was NOT on the disputed estates!

CR has persistently made the lawyer-like claim that either no one can be sure who took out the transformer or that it was white provocateurs. The latter claim seems ridiculous, considering that the transformer was well behind the native protesters lines. It gives rise to the silly picture of Caledonia townsfolk dressed as ninjas sneaking ghostlike through the native lines in order to destroy the transformer, then to stealthily sneak back across those same lines to get home!

Blatchford's book promises to be a good read. I've followed her columns for decades now and I've never found her to be the type to lie or distort the truth. She can be mistaken but never deliberately evil. She writes with a refreshing, down to earth objectivity. She would have no reason to fabricate anything in her book.

Anyhow, I'll know better of course once it arrives. I find that some folks don't even have to read it to condemn it most interesting and goes to character.

As for my KKK comparison, while there may be a difference in degree I see none in principle. If you have a difference with a person or an authority that's one thing. When you take protest action that doesn't affect your real target in the slightest but rather is against the closest folks of the same colour...to me that's simple racism, by definition.

That's why I find it equally foolish for some to claim that all native claims are wrong or that all natives have this or that attributes. How can someone say that unless they've met everyone of them? We are all individuals and responsible for our own actions, not that of the group we happen to live in or the colour of ourselves and our neighbours.

I'm not overly familiar with large numbers of native land claims across the country but it's only the Caledonia protest that has offended my sense of justice. Again, not for the actual claims but rather for their protest tactics.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Sir Bandelot]

Well you've got to give them some credit for using hockey sticks... another Canadian innovation

[Shwa]

Your history differs with what appeared in the papers at the time. It was reported that the SN council had been notified of the building permit for the Douglas Creek Estates. It was only when the project was long underway and a number of houses nearing completion that suddenly a protest sprang up!

Both Caledonia council and the developer were surprised, since they claimed they had notified the proper SN authority and had received no objection.

Be that as it may, taking action against that specific site would seem logical. However, that's not the way it went.

Here's the Wiki version, which seems mostly non-partisan:

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

"April 20: The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), more than three weeks after the motions judge’s second contempt order, the OPP went to Douglas Creek Estates and arrested twenty-one persons under the warrant of arrest. Later that day, several hundred natives from a nearby reserve, some of whom were masked and were armed with bats, axes and hockey sticks, returned to the site. The police retreated and the natives reclaimed the site and set up roadblocks along the access street. During the evening, the protesters put hundreds of tires across the highway, doused them with gasoline and lit them. In addition, they set fire to a wooden bridge over railway tracks. Firefighters were unable to extinguish both fires because the fire chief stated that he did not believe the OPP could protect his men if they attempted to put out the fires against native orders. Several boxes of documents from the land developer's office inside a model home, were stolen and tossed into a bonfire. [2][3] A short time later, a hydro substation was destroyed when a truck crashed through its gates and was set on fire, causing a blackout and $1 million in damages."

Well you have probably done more research into the dispute than I have, but I will have to stick with my original contention and view of history that wasn't reported in the papers. Here is another quote from a wiki article that also seems mostly non-partisan:

1992: Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land for what it would later call the Douglas Creek Estates lands.

1995: Six Nations sued the federal and provincial governments over the land. The developer called it "an accounting claim" for "all assets which were not received but ought to have been received, managed or held by the Crown for the benefit of the Six Nations."

So how do you reconcile this with what the papers are telling you? It seems to me that there was something a-brewin at least 14 years prior...

[charter.rights]

Well you have probably done more research into the dispute than I have, but I will have to stick with my original contention and view of history that wasn't reported in the papers. Here is another quote from a wiki article that also seems mostly non-partisan:

So how do you reconcile this with what the papers are telling you? It seems to me that there was something a-brewin at least 14 years prior...

You give Bill far too much credit. He hasn't done any research. He is merely regurgitating what he thinks he read in local newspapers. That is not research it is simple myth-making.

Six Nations was taking every opportunity 2 years before the occupation to get Haldimand County to the consultation table. They blatantly refused. And in the same order that Oka went down, the protesters only moved in when the bulldozers and builders had started work on the site. This was precipitated by Haldimand County refusing to consult, and the failures at federal and provincial levels to follow the rule of law.

And one last thing. The 1844 agreement where the government has claimed Six Nation surrendered the Plank Road and 1 mile each side was not a surrender, and when the government of day tried to imply it was a surrender, Six Nations made it clear with a letter rescinding and nullifying the agreement. Legally it cannot be taken as a surrender either, since it fails the test set out by the Supreme Court in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada. Accordingly, that test requires: interpreters to be present at all times during negotiations; that there must have been a desire by the nation to make the surrender that was clearly expressed;that there had to be a public meeting with consensus by the entire community to make the surrender; that the surrender had to be signed in the presence of the community with great ceremony and according to customs; that copies of the surrender documents must have been presented at the time of surrender; that there had to be consideration either in the form of money or some other valuable thing, and; consideration had to have been paid in full, or according to the terms of the surrender.

Lastly, for Bill's benefit, the transformer substation was located outside of the boundaries of DCE and served most Six Nations as much as it served Caledonia. By the time the fire took place the OPP would have clearly had people at all corners of the DCE and according to the Ipperwash report, it is likely they also had infiltrators probing DCE as well.

Caledonia as well as Toronto and Ottawa are on Six Nations territory. There has never been any surrender by Six Nations over any of southern Ontario which according to the Royal Proclamation 1763 is theirs until they do wish to surrender it. And according to the British High Court, Lord Dunning in 1982 (just prior to the repatriation of the Constitution) wrote:

“To my mind the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was equivalent to an entrenched provision in the constitution of the colonies in North America. It was binding on the Crown ‘so long as the sun rises and the river flows’."

and,

“That judgement was given at a time when, in constitutional law, the Crown was single and indivisible. In view of it , and in later cases,

I think that the Indian title

(by which I mean the ‘personal and ususfructary right’ of the Indians in respect of ‘lands reserved to the Indians’)

was a title superior to all others

save and in so far as the Indians themselves surrendered or ceded it to the Crown. That title was guaranteed to them by the Crown. Then by treaties which covered much of Canada the Indians did cede and surrender their right to some lands to the Crown and in return the Crown undertook to full the obligations set out in the treaties. Those treaty obligations were obligations of the Crown, the single and indivisible Crown which was at that time the Crown of the United Kingdom."

The land is fully theirs and the government must consult with them before any development or any other action that may affect their title or rights is taken. End of story.

Edited October 26, 2010 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

Well you have probably done more research into the dispute than I have, but I will have to stick with my original contention and view of history that wasn't reported in the papers. Here is another quote from a wiki article that also seems mostly non-partisan:

So how do you reconcile this with what the papers are telling you? It seems to me that there was something a-brewin at least 14 years prior...

You may be quite right! As I said, I don't pretend to be an expert on native claims and also that I often support them. In fact, before the Caledonia protest I was quite a bit on the SN side, as far as many of their claims.

Again, it was the SN TACTICS that offended me! As soon as their protest moved beyond the Douglas Creek Estates they lost me. When they beat up those CHCH-TV camera men the protesters would have to have been mentally deficient if they thought they would have any hope of support from the media. When I saw Janie Jamieson on tv trying to deny protester actions that had been caught on videotape by claiming the tapes were a fabrication the protesters lost all credibility with me.

So there's no point in trying to involve me in the legalities of native land claims. I'm no expert and often I would agree with you anyway.

I just believe that in the Caledonia case the protesters took a cheap shot at their neighbours instead of their actual oppressors. I am against all forms of discrimination, including reverse discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. They just perpetuate bad feeling.

Native protester Shawn Brant offends me for similar reasons. When he blocks a VIA rail line he is not inconveniencing any politicians who have the power to resolve their claim. He's pissing off trainloads of ordinary folks who BEFORE he blocked the line might well have supported him! Those passengers are not going to vent their spleen on their government. They are going to resent Shawn! He's the one who did it to them.

Nobody should be treated as cannon fodder. Not red, white, brown or green. If historically some group WAS treated badly that doesn't mean they have the right to attack others who only share a skin colour with some of those individuals who oppressed them.

In fact, in the final analysis I reject the very concept of group guilt! We are all responsible for our own sins and for most of us that's quite enough.

[Shwa]

You may be quite right! As I said, I don't pretend to be an expert on native claims and also that I often support them. In fact, before the Caledonia protest I was quite a bit on the SN side, as far as many of their claims.

Ok, so let's just say I am right and that there WAS a whole litany of fruitless efforts towards the settlement of the Haldiman Tract claims in the years, even decades, leading up to the 2006 protest.

Again, it was the SN TACTICS that offended me! As soon as their protest moved beyond the Douglas Creek Estates they lost me. When they beat up those CHCH-TV camera men the protesters would have to have been mentally deficient if they thought they would have any hope of support from the media. When I saw Janie Jamieson on tv trying to deny protester actions that had been caught on videotape by claiming the tapes were a fabrication the protesters lost all credibility with me.

So there's no point in trying to involve me in the legalities of native land claims. I'm no expert and often I would agree with you anyway.

So, outside of the Douglas Creek Estates issue, are you also familiar with the outcomes of Ipperwash and Oka? You know, where people were killed?

I just believe that in the Caledonia case the protesters took a cheap shot at their neighbours instead of their actual oppressors. I am against all forms of discrimination, including reverse discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. They just perpetuate bad feeling.

You are making it all sound one sided when there were many sides, complex issues and negotiations. You don't think there were cheapshots given by some Caledonia residents and even some other folks who were suddenly appearing in Caledonia as so-called "supporters?" Are you telling me that provocation was all on the side of the Six Nations protesters?

The problem I find with your view here is that you somehow equate the townsfolk as weak, powerless sheeple. And who knows - maybe they think that of themselves too. But I hardly think that is the reality. Did Caledonians have an opportunity to redress the issue and maybe take a look at it themselves? Well, here is what you wrote before you realized that this issue had been brewing for a very long time:

Both Caledonia council and the developer were surprised, since they claimed they had notified the proper SN authority and had received no objection.

So are you telling me that somehow - through some secret magic spell - that the town and developer were surprised there was a problem even though that particular piece of land was in dispute for at least 10 years, but probably more? Are you telling me that a developer in unaware of Indian land claims or that the Caledonia town council somehow 'forgot' about that parcel of land even though there was a lawsuit?

It would seem to me that both the town and the developer were fully aware of the contention over that parcel of land and they did and said nothing.

And why would they say nothing? Because they both had some monetary gain to be realized didn't they? Upscale homes bring in upscale money which brings in upscale votes and upscale business into the town.

So then, I find your impression that the town and developer were inculpable to be a titch unrealistic don't you?

Native protester Shawn Brant offends me for similar reasons. When he blocks a VIA rail line he is not inconveniencing any politicians who have the power to resolve their claim. He's pissing off trainloads of ordinary folks who BEFORE he blocked the line might well have supported him! Those passengers are not going to vent their spleen on their government. They are going to resent Shawn! He's the one who did it to them.

And I presume that you do not support any labour union or strike action by any organization whatsoever? I mean, labour actions generally inconvenience the public. There is a reason for that and it usually works.

Nobody should be treated as cannon fodder. Not red, white, brown or green. If historically some group WAS treated badly that doesn't mean they have the right to attack others who only share a skin colour with some of those individuals who oppressed them.

I agree, an honourable sentiment. But alas, it seems that the the town and the developer had ample opportunity to help resolve the issue LONG before 2006 and they did nothing and said nothing. And when the shit hit the fan all they could do was distance themselves from their civic responsibilities. They left the very people that entrusted them, to hang out to dry. Just like they had done to the Indians, their neighbours for hundreds of years.

If a couple of people got punched out, well, thank God that was all.

In fact, in the final analysis I reject the very concept of group guilt! We are all responsible for our own sins and for most of us that's quite enough.

Another honourable sentiment. Too bad the Caledonia town council and the developer don't subscribe to the same feelings eh?

[Wild Bill]

You are making it all sound one sided when there were many sides, complex issues and negotiations. You don't think there were cheapshots given by some Caledonia residents and even some other folks who were suddenly appearing in Caledonia as so-called "supporters?" Are you telling me that provocation was all on the side of the Six Nations protesters?

The problem I find with your view here is that you somehow equate the townsfolk as weak, powerless sheeple. And who knows - maybe they think that of themselves too. But I hardly think that is the reality. Did Caledonians have an opportunity to redress the issue and maybe take a look at it themselves? Well, here is what you wrote before you realized that this issue had been brewing for a very long time:

So are you telling me that somehow - through some secret magic spell - that the town and developer were surprised there was a problem even though that particular piece of land was in dispute for at least 10 years, but probably more? Are you telling me that a developer in unaware of Indian land claims or that the Caledonia town council somehow 'forgot' about that parcel of land even though there was a lawsuit?

It would seem to me that both the town and the developer were fully aware of the contention over that parcel of land and they did and said nothing.

And why would they say nothing? Because they both had some monetary gain to be realized didn't they? Upscale homes bring in upscale money which brings in upscale votes and upscale business into the town.

So then, I find your impression that the town and developer were inculpable to be a titch unrealistic don't you?

And I presume that you do not support any labour union or strike action by any organization whatsoever? I mean, labour actions generally inconvenience the public. There is a reason for that and it usually works.

I agree, an honourable sentiment. But alas, it seems that the the town and the developer had ample opportunity to help resolve the issue LONG before 2006 and they did nothing and said nothing. And when the shit hit the fan all they could do was distance themselves from their civic responsibilities. They left the very people that entrusted them, to hang out to dry. Just like they had done to the Indians, their neighbours for hundreds of years.

If a couple of people got punched out, well, thank God that was all.

Another honourable sentiment. Too bad the Caledonia town council and the developer don't subscribe to the same feelings eh?

But it wasn't anyone on the town council who got punched out! That's my point! And if you're implying that the years before the protest broke out generated frustration, so what? That frustration did not make an ordinary town citizen a legitimate target. Ordinary citizens have no real power. That's what governments are for. If someone had have punched out Dalton McGuinty I could have respected that.

Even if the developer and the council were both guilty as sin, it doesn't change my opinion. Punch out a developer then! Or better yet, his lawyer! Don't target innocents. That's the definition of terrorism.

As for unions, I don't believe I am inconsistent there. If Ford goes on strike that's fine with me. I can always buy a Chevvy. I feel differently with public sector unions. They usually have a monopoly on a particular service and thus we citizens have no other choice. THAT offends me!

You keep trying to sidetrack the basic issue. Screw the land claims! My argument is solely with protester tactics. Anything else is just a diversion.

[Shwa]

But it wasn't anyone on the town council who got punched out! That's my point! And if you're implying that the years before the protest broke out generated frustration, so what? That frustration did not make an ordinary town citizen a legitimate target. Ordinary citizens have no real power. That's what governments are for. If someone had have punched out Dalton McGuinty I could have respected that.

Even if the developer and the council were both guilty as sin, it doesn't change my opinion. Punch out a developer then! Or better yet, his lawyer! Don't target innocents. That's the definition of terrorism.

Really? Did a gang of big, bad Indian thugs march into the streets of Caledonia and start indiscriminatingly beating the poor, powerless townspeople up? Come on now. A couple of noses got poppped. There is worse violence over a couple weekends at the local cowboy bar for gawdsakes. What you are doing is the classic minimizing/maximizing routine.

The town - represented by their elected officials - said nothing basically giving the council and the developer implicit approval to do what they wanted to do.

As for unions, I don't believe I am inconsistent there. If Ford goes on strike that's fine with me. I can always buy a Chevvy. I feel differently with public sector unions. They usually have a monopoly on a particular service and thus we citizens have no other choice. THAT offends me!

You keep trying to sidetrack the basic issue. Screw the land claims! My argument is solely with protester tactics. Anything else is just a diversion.

Sure, I get ya. Protester tactics. Never mind the years of "tactics" used by the town and the developers, that doesn't enter into the debate once somebody gets popped in the yap right?

[charter.rights]

Native protester Shawn Brant offends me for similar reasons. When he blocks a VIA rail line he is not inconveniencing any politicians who have the power to resolve their claim. He's pissing off trainloads of ordinary folks who BEFORE he blocked the line might well have supported him! Those passengers are not going to vent their spleen on their government. They are going to resent Shawn! He's the one who did it to them.

Just like in Caledonia the railroad was correctly targeted, not by Shawn Brant but by a hoard of about 50 protesters from Tyendinaga. The CN was so mad that they tried to sue Shawn Brant and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Band Council for the loss of revenue...$300 million I believe....but ended up withdrawing it when they realized that natives can't be sued and collected from. The fact is that Shawn Brant was not a leader nor was he responsible for the 50 or so protesters. He was merely the spokesperson for them. That is clearly evident in the testimony and copies of the illegal wiretap recordings played in court at their trials - which by the way was conditionally discharged because they were exercising their rights on their own Mohawk Territory.

So Bill, your anger and resentment is displaced. The protesters were in the right according to the court.

Now the reality in Caledonia is that citizens were not "targeted" as your myth-making suggests. Rather they injected themselves between a lawful exercise of proprietary estoppel. And even after the police made a failed attempt to serve an illegal injunction, the protesters created a safety line and even a buffer zone between them and the residents and set up security patrols to monitor them. But what happened next was that some boneheads from Caledonia decided the protesters had no right and tried to take the law into their own hands, by attempting to move inside the police and protester boundaries they set up. There were rallies as an weekly event for no other purpose but to raise tensions. There were cases were people from the reserve were harassed and assaulted as they attempted to go to town for supplies. There were golf balls hit at protesters from the backyards of those same residents where Six Nations protesters agreed to maintain a buffer zone. Clearly, Caledonia residents injected themselves into the foray in every attempt to create violence and mayhem, which the police had to intervene.

Last of all we have Gary McHale who brings in 30 or 40 skinheads into the peaceful community for no other reason but to get a pound of flesh. Do you think that McHale, and Vandermaas came there for Sunday tea? Of course not. Like a pair of frenzied squirrels at a peanut harvest they incited people to violence. However, once it got out what these two nefarious white supremacists were up to, their support quickly dwindled, and people started to go home. And things started to calm down. Caledonia still suffers from their support for Gary McHale as many Six Nations people continue to refuse to shop there.

Even you cannot ignore or dismiss the claims. Six Nations has been on record for over 150 years that the Plank Road claim was invalid and I can't believe how conveniently you skipped over that fact while selectively reading the media. And it is the government continuing to ignore land claims and aboriginal rights that is at the centre of every native protest. So what if some Caledonians had to travel another 6 minutes around the by-pass to go to work. So what if a few Caledonians had to look at some lights at night, or the police line in the morning. That is the nature of protest - someone gets put out for a just cause. It truly was a tragedy that anyone on either side got punched out when anger and tensions rose. However, that is nothing new after the Friday night punch-outs that regularly occurred in the bars around town.

I have even less sympathy for someone who lies about it.

Your anger and disillusionment is of no concern here. The problem isn't the protest or their methods and tactics. The real problem lies in your inability to separate fact from fantasy and then your getting incensed at things that never happened. Instead of lowering yourself to the likes of Gary McHale and Mark Vandermaas I suggest that you stop relying on sensational crap like Blatchford is trying to sell and do some thorough research on the history of the claims and the actions that have been ignored over the last 200 years. It is a hell of a lot more interesting than that self-pity and consternation you are trying to portray.

[Bugs]

The cops have dropped the ball...The Fed's have dropped the ball...The province has dropped the ball...

And the residents of Caledonia are all caught in the middle...

And this is from someone who goes to the reserve more than a few times in the summer...And NOT for cheap smokes!!!

Sorry, this is all Dalton McGoof, at his lying worst. Remember how the Liberals went after Harris, personally, for the Ipperwash raid? He painted himself into a corner when the suddenly the shoe was on his foot. He couldn't do what Harris did because he had slagged Harris so bad, and was even trying to have him arrested for it.

Understand, this is not a land dispute. Nor does the Federal government have a role. This is all stuff that is clearly within provincial jurisdiction.

The piece of land in question was cleared for sale by the tribal council, and they even had anthropologists looking for grave-sites, before the building permits were issued. The natives involved do not have an aboriginal right to the lands in the area -- their lands were in upstate New York, and they got their title in fee simple from the Queen. The land had been bought by the government back before Confederation, as part of the plank road they were building, so you know how long ago it must have been.

The demonstration is a move by aboriginal gangsters involved in tobacco smuggling, gun smuggling, and casino and on-line gambling. They wanted the land for a casino, and were the losing bidder on the land. Figure it out.

The legal situation is this: property owners have a common-law right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. That has been taken away from them by the pattern of police enforcement. There were cases of elderly people being dragged from their cars because they tried to use the public highway. A contractor was nearly killed for building a house for his daughter, and the police stood around trying to prevent anyone from intervening because they were ordered to let the reserve police handle such cases. Only petty charges were laid in an attempted murder.

The natives say they are sovereign, and that Canadian law doesn't apply to them. In fact, the insurance company on the Douglas Estates project refused to pay off because, by their lights, Caledonia is an armed insurrection. No construction can take place through much of the Grand River area without paying the natives a 'development' fee.

It is literally a challenge to Canadian sovereignty.

Next time you're at the reservation, getting your illegal smokes, ask them about their sovereignty. You'll likely find out.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Bugs

[charter.rights]

Sorry, this is all Dalton McGoof, at his lying worst. Remember how the Liberals went after Harris, personally, for the Ipperwash raid? He painted himself into a corner when the suddenly the shoe was on his foot. He couldn't do what Harris did because he had slagged Harris so bad, and was even trying to have him arrested for it.

You majored in 'Ignorance" in college, didn't you.....

Understand, this is not a land dispute. Nor does the Federal government have a role. This is all stuff that is clearly within provincial jurisdiction.

Eghhhhhhhhh. Wrong. The Plank Road claim goes back to 1842 when the colonial government first came to Six Nations requesting that they allow the government to put a road - the Plank Road - through their territory. The government said it had to be surrendered. Six Nations refused and instead agreed to lease the land and the 1 mile on either side for merchant purposes. By 1844 the Indian Agent had a signed agreement in his hand saying that Six Nations had surrender the land, even though the document only contained 20 of the requisite 50 Chiefs signatures (and of the 20 only a handful were actually chiefs). Six Nations objected and by 1855 had sent a letter to the government saying they had never intended to sell the land and that any agreement made was thereby rescinded. The purported surrender does not meet the test set out by the Supreme Court to qualify as a surrender. So there this is a land dispute - one that is nearly 175 years old.

The piece of land in question was cleared for sale by the tribal council, and they even had anthropologists looking for grave-sites, before the building permits were issued. The natives involved do not have an aboriginal right to the lands in the area -- their lands were in upstate New York, and they got their title in fee simple from the Queen. The land had been bought by the government back before Confederation, as part of the plank road they were building, so you know how long ago it must have been.

The title for all of southern Ontario was recognized by the Crown in 1701 when Six Nations surrender a portion of their lands south of the Great Lakes to Great Britain in the Nafan Treaty. This also was a recognition that their lands north of the Great Lakes (which according to archaeology had been occupied for about 1000 years by Confederacy Iroquois). By 1757 Six Nations sovereignty was recognized on the Mitchell Map as being south of the Ottawa River and Nippissing, west to Lake Huron, east to Montreal and south to Lakes Ontario and Erie. In 1763 the Royal Proclamation identified this territory as Indian Lands - reserved for them exclusively where settlement and use was prohibited. No where since 1763 have the lands been surrendered.

The demonstration is a move by aboriginal gangsters involved in tobacco smuggling, gun smuggling, and casino and on-line gambling. They wanted the land for a casino, and were the losing bidder on the land. Figure it out.

Your dumb degree goes with an ignorance major, I guess....

The legal situation is this: property owners have a common-law right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. That has been taken away from them by the pattern of police enforcement. There were cases of elderly people being dragged from their cars because they tried to use the public highway. A contractor was nearly killed for building a house for his daughter, and the police stood around trying to prevent anyone from intervening because they were ordered to let the reserve police handle such cases. Only petty charges were laid in an attempted murder.

Hyperbole and outright bulls@it.

The natives say they are sovereign, and that Canadian law doesn't apply to them. In fact, the insurance company on the Douglas Estates project refused to pay off because, by their lights, Caledonia is an armed insurrection. No construction can take place through much of the Grand River area without paying the natives a 'development' fee.

All natives are sovereign and have never capitulated to the Crown. Nor under international law toady or then could one nation assumed jurisdiction over another. The Crown uses "legal magic" to support their claim sovereignty. It doesn't exist.

It is literally a challenge to Canadian sovereignty.

Canada has no sovereignty to land. All land has an underlying aboriginal title and is a plenum dominium until it is surrendered. Even still the SCoC has stated that aboriginal title is sui generis, not understood under common law and according to the British High Court in 1940 is a title superior to all else.

Next time you're at the reservation, getting your illegal smokes, ask them about their sovereignty. You'll likely find out.

Next time you are at the res make sure you take someone smart along with you. You'll need it to communicate with superior beings.

Edited October 27, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

I wanted to expand a bit on the sui generis of aboriginal title.

According to Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada aboriginal title can be view in this way.

DELGAMUUKW v. BRITISH COLUMBIA

Lamer C.J. identified the sui generis [i.e., unique] nature of Aboriginal title as the unifying principle underlying its various dimensions. These are:

• inalienability, in that lands held pursuant to Aboriginal title may be transferred or surrendered only to the Crown: this does not mean, however, that Aboriginal title "is a non-proprietary interest which amounts to no more than a licence to use and occupy the land and cannot compete on an equal footing with other proprietary interests" (par. 113);

• source, in that Aboriginal title arises from (1) occupation of Canada by Aboriginal peoples prior to the Royal Proclamation of 1763: under common law principles, the physical fact of occupation is proof of possession in law; and (2) the relationship between common law and pre-existing systems of Aboriginal law;

• communal nature, in that Aboriginal title is a collective right to land held by all members of an Aboriginal nation.

These features cannot be explained fully under either common law rules of real property, or property rules of Aboriginal legal systems.

Inalienability. This means that title cannot be usurped by law, or by agreements or treaties that do not meet the tests set out by the Court for a surrender. That provides that where there has been no surrender, as stated by the British High Court, that title is superior to all others, and the "fruits of the land" belong to native people.

Source. This means that the only test required to determine if aboriginal title is superior is to establish that a particular group occupied and used the territory when the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made. There is no need for other proof, or argument that a particular band may have re-settled before that.

Communal in nature. This means that aboriginal groups have a personal and usufructary right to the land and resources, and that no surrender could be held valid unless there was full consent from all members of the band.

The fact that not only the British High Court, or the Supreme Court recognize this usufrutary right both before and after surrender treaties, but it also means that title to the land is never severed. Only the ~some~ use of land - part of the usufruct - is surrendered, and not the land itself. This is an important fact, since there are many cases where territories overlapped. It seems that the Court realizes that it could not obtain title to land when the aboriginal title was also held in common (in communion) with other aboriginal groups. Thus when it comes to harvesting, resources or extended use of lands such as industrial development aboriginal people may very well have a say in how that evolves even where a treaty by one group surrendered some of their rights to the land.

Now back to Caledonia.....

There have been a number of assertions - legal magic - which people claim were indications that Six Nations has no right to stop development in the Haldimand. Let's first be clear:

Six Nations has never surrendered their rights or made a treaty for lands in all of southern Ontario that the Crown recognized under the Royal Proclamation 1763. Fact.

And when the Crown met with the Mississauga and Six Nations at Burlington to discuss the Haldimand Tract settlement, it neither met the prerequisites for a bona fide surrender, nor could the Mississauga have surrendered Six Nations' aboriginal title to any part of Six Nations. So the meeting was for ~something~ else, other than a surrender.

The Proclamation 1763 required a surrender of the aboriginal usufruct in order to settle upon or occupy any part of a territory. That cannot mean that the Crown can seek only the surrender from one nation when there are many more competing interests in the land. Rather for a surrender to be held valid it must include all nations who held occupancy both at the time of the Proclamation and at the time of the proposed treaties.

So it is clear that Six Nations hold superior title to all of southern Ontario. So the Plank Road surrender having not met the burden required for surrender cannot be valid. And as Caledonia (as well as Brantford, Toronto, Ottawa and all other places between) sits on Six Nations territory, no development can take place unless Six Nations agrees to it. That also means that if they have a requirement for fees or any other conditions to be met, then there is no choice. Six Nations protesters lawfully stopped development of DCE and reclaimed it as their own. End of story.

[Wild Bill]

Well, I received Blatchford's book yesterday and already I'm about a third of the way through it. It's a great read so far!

The amount of detail she has amassed is staggering. Perhaps that's because there was so very much happening. Pictures, too.

If anything, the situation there was and is far worse than anything I had imagined!

Blatchford specifically states in her preface that she makes no attempt to take sides as to the validity of the native claims or how they have been historically treated. Her book is about the Caledonia protest and the total breakdown of the rule of Law.

From what I have read so far, anyone who reads her book and could still vote for McGuinty must be completely devoid of any moral sense of good and evil at all! Hell, what he did could convert Mother Theresa into a capital punishment supporter!

It's a lead pipe cinch that Julian Fantino's opponents when he runs for Harper's party in the riding of Vaughn will seize reports from this book as ammunition to attack him during the campaign.

And yes, the natives DID have firearms! In fact, many residents kept logbooks of the times they saw rifles and heard gunfire.

Most distressing perhaps of all was the OFFICAL policy of "protecting the natives from the townsfolk" when virtually all the violence was coming from the native protesters! In fact, the man in charge was Ron George, the first cousin of Dudley George, the man who was killed at Ipperwash.

I urge everyone with the slightest interest in the rule of Law and how easily it can be abandoned for political expediency to beg, borrow or steal a copy of this book!

It also would be interesting if someone would write a similar book from the native protesters' side, hopefully similar in depth of detail and substantiation. The sheer volume of detail makes the idea of it being a racist fabrication sound like a denial of the moon landings.

[Argus]

Sure, I get ya. Protester tactics. Never mind the years of "tactics" used by the town and the developers, that doesn't enter into the debate once somebody gets popped in the yap right?

This discussion is not about the native thugs and their supporters who try to justify their criminal behaviour. That behaviour is established and nobody gives a fat shit about why they think that, historically, they were justified in acting like thugs. The point is that the OPP, under the orders of a spineless, sniveling, bullying, arrogant, two-faced scum of a commissioner, who was responding to the orders of a cowardly provincial government terrified that any confrontation with natives would harm its reputation for bleeding heart liberalism, did not uphold the law.

It goes without saying that all the native thugs should have been imprisoned. But the more important point is the need to fire all the senior OPP officers involved, and to get that puking coward McGuinty out of office.

[guyser]

The point is that the OPP, under the orders of a spineless, sniveling, bullying, arrogant, two-faced scum of a commissioner, who was responding to the orders of a cowardly provincial government terrified that any confrontation with natives would harm its reputation for bleeding heart liberalism, did not uphold the law.

It goes without saying that all the native thugs should have been imprisoned. But the more important point is the need to fire all the senior OPP officers involved, and to get that puking coward McGuinty out of office.

According to OPP who were on the scene, the reason the police did nothing was due to the fact the province was not backing them with respect to paying for all the wages and expenses in this standoff.

The OPP were bussing and even flying cops to Caledonia, who due to their contract were paid for the time they boarded the bus/plane until they returned home. Some were going for two week stints and it was getting to be too expensive.

The cops wanted to end the standoff, the province wanted them to sit and wait.

Police do not like to be obvious pawns, although we all know they sure doo when ticketing people,in which case they should be called revenue generators.

In other words the Prov govt and the OPP were fighting, not agreeing.

Edited October 28, 2010 by guyser

[Wild Bill]

According to OPP who were on the scene, the reason the police did nothing was due to the fact the province was not backing them with respect to paying for all the wages and expenses in this standoff.

The OPP were bussing and even flying cops to Caledonia, who due to their contract were paid for the time they boarded the bus/plane until they returned home. Some were going for two week stints and it was getting to be too expensive.

The cops wanted to end the standoff, the province wanted them to sit and wait.

Police do not like to be obvious pawns, although we all know they sure doo when ticketing people,in which case they should be called revenue generators.

In other words the Prov govt and the OPP were fighting, not agreeing.

I've just finished the book and nowhere in it did I find anything to agree with this premise. The province had no problems with expense at all. It was deemed worth it, politically. The cops referred to the town as "Cashedonia", due to all the overtime money. No one had any problem at all with being paid.

The cops wanted to end the standoff because they were sick at heart at being ordered to "protect the natives from the townsfolk" and to arrest ONLY townsfolk! Many of them initially complained. Those that did were promptly transferred or demoted. Their union tried to stick up for them but to no avail.

So the cops did nothing because they were specifically ordered to do nothing! McGuinty was terrified of an Ipperwash situation, after he had worked so hard to crucify Harris over how he had handled it. With Caledonia, things escalated so badly because he kept drawing lines in the sand that the protesters would just promptly cross! They learned very rapidly that the province and the OPP would not do anything, so each line crossing just taught them they could get away with more and more.

I'd love to hear from others who have read the book. It would make a good thread.

[Shwa]

This discussion is not about the native thugs and their supporters who try to justify their criminal behaviour. That behaviour is established and nobody gives a fat shit about why they think that, historically, they were justified in acting like thugs.

I'm sorry Argus, did you suddenly become a forum mod? I mustn't have seen the memo.

The point is that the OPP, under the orders of a spineless, sniveling, bullying, arrogant, two-faced scum of a commissioner, who was responding to the orders of a cowardly provincial government terrified that any confrontation with natives would harm its reputation for bleeding heart liberalism, did not uphold the law.

Sounds like they turned you into a powerless white guy. Or were you actually powerless before the stand-off?

It goes without saying that all the native thugs should have been imprisoned. But the more important point is the need to fire all the senior OPP officers involved, and to get that puking coward McGuinty out of office.

And yet, here we are. So who knows Canadian history and law better than you? It would appear some old gramma clan mothers on the Six Nations reserve have a little more insight than the sum total of all your blathering.

[guyser]

I've just finished the book and nowhere in it did I find anything to agree with this premise. The province had no problems with expense at all. It was deemed worth it, politically. The cops referred to the town as "Cashedonia", due to all the overtime money. No one had any problem at all with being paid.

I have no doubts that is what you read.

All I can say is what I posted came straight from two OPP's mouths. The expenses were bourne by the OPP from their budget.

Make no mistake, these guys could be wrong, but that is what they told me.

[Wild Bill]

I have no doubts that is what you read.

All I can say is what I posted came straight from two OPP's mouths. The expenses were bourne by the OPP from their budget.

Make no mistake, these guys could be wrong, but that is what they told me.

Well Guyser, it probably depends on which cops you talk to. The entire force seems to have been very conflicted. When you have little old ladies crying and saying they'll never trust a cop again, or old men being taken to hospital with imminent heart failure after being harrassed and beaten WHILE THE COPS WATCHED AND DID NOT INTERFERE you're going to have some cops that don't want to say anything, some that want to admit they no longer respect their leaders and some that believe their leaders because the alternative is just something they can't admit to themselves.

Anyhow, if your sources are right and money was a factor it could not have been that big of one. You really should read the book! It's an eyeopener, for sure. Christie writes with a very light dose of her own opinion. She lets the evidence and the eyewitness accounts speak for themselves, along with copies of official OPP documents and the like.

[Argus]

Sounds like they turned you into a powerless white guy. Or were you actually powerless before the stand-off?

I'm simply demonstrating my firm belief in peace, order and good government.

You, on the other hand, are demonstrating your paternalistic bigotry. I expect the same behaviour of all, regardless of race. Bigots like you don't believe people who don't have white skin can ever measure up to common standards of civilzed behaviour, and so get outraged that others are "picking on them" for acting uncivilized.

But carry on. Continue to demonstrate your bigotry.

[charter.rights]

Well Guyser, it probably depends on which cops you talk to. The entire force seems to have been very conflicted. When you have little old ladies crying and saying they'll never trust a cop again, or old men being taken to hospital with imminent heart failure after being harrassed and beaten WHILE THE COPS WATCHED AND DID NOT INTERFERE you're going to have some cops that don't want to say anything, some that want to admit they no longer respect their leaders and some that believe their leaders because the alternative is just something they can't admit to themselves.

Anyhow, if your sources are right and money was a factor it could not have been that big of one. You really should read the book! It's an eyeopener, for sure. Christie writes with a very light dose of her own opinion. She lets the evidence and the eyewitness accounts speak for themselves, along with copies of official OPP documents and the like.

Then again, maybe you just got taken in by the hype and propaganda of someone whose sensationalism adds to her profits?