Caledonia The town That Law Forgot

[CANADIEN]

Talking about them all I doubt it.

The amount of money held in trust, and whether or not ther was a trust, very from case to case. But the existence of a trust for the Six Nations, and how far it goes bak in time, means there is a lot of money to be accounted for (not the close to 1 trillion number put forward by CR). My point though, was more than since the talk was about money held in trust for the Six-Nations, any comparison to helth and education assitance should be based on the sums that go to these services to the Six Nations, not the First Nations as a whole.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The amount of money held in trust, and whether or not ther was a trust, very from case to case. But the existence of a trust for the Six Nations, and how far it goes bak in time, means there is a lot of money to be accounted for (not the close to 1 trillion number put forward by CR). My point though, was more than since the talk was about money held in trust for the Six-Nations, any comparison to helth and education assitance should be based on the sums that go to these services to the Six Nations, not the First Nations as a whole.

True enough, and while you right it's probably not anywhere close to 1 trillion it will be a large number.

[Who's Doing What?]

WHile I respect a groups right to protest, I cannot help but wonder what would happen if myself and a few dozen people blockaded a road and burnt houses and the such.

I am pretty sure the police would have tear gassed us, rushed in and put us all under arrest.

To treat one group of people any different, ie. Give them privledges not afforded to others, is discrimination.

If we want to start adding up money, vis a vis the "trust fund" v. "expenses, taxes etc." I find the idea of hundreds of billions of dollars being owed to be a total joke. I am not saying that there might not be a few billion that is owed, but upwards of 1 trillion is lunacy. I cannot go to the person who bought 1/2 of my great grandfathers farm and tell him he now owes me the additional $745,000 that the land is now worth, plus the compounded interest on that money.

BAck to Caledonia, I agree with Argus that it is the Tactics being used that are the issue. I cannot have sympathy for a group that quotes laws and treaties and then breaks the law at every turn trying to get it's message heard. To hold an entire community hostage is dispicable. To commit multiple acts of arson, vandalism and assault and then expect people to listen to you is laughable. The Tactics being used by the Natives have destroyed their credibility, and cost them my sympathy.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Who's Doing What?

[bloodyminded]

I read it, and I agree that natives have been systematically ripped off by the government of Canada since day one. We can argue about the magnitude of that ripoff,

Well said.

And certainly, we can (and should) argue and parse and figure out what's what, and it's a complicated matter.

But at the end of the day, when we even have to argue that the Native people got royally screwed over in multiple ways...good Christ. The argument itself cheapens us. It's akin to debating the objective reality of the Holocaust.

(I'm not saying you shouldn't argue it, SB; I'm saying it's unfair that you have to.)

[Shwa]

BAck to Caledonia, I agree with Argus that it is the Tactics being used that are the issue. I cannot have sympathy for a group that quotes laws and treaties and then breaks the law at every turn trying to get it's message heard. To hold an entire community hostage is dispicable. To commit multiple acts of arson, vandalism and assault and then expect people to listen to you is laughable. The Tactics being used by the Natives have destroyed their credibility, and cost them my sympathy.

Do you really think that they care about their credibility in your eyes or gaining your sympathy? Where was your credibility and sympathy when they were originally trying to settle this dispute decades ago? You didn't hear about it back then? Really?

Of course, because it is only about the "tactics" now which, ironically enough, has brought your attention to what the issue is actually about in the first place. Is that about it?

I guess the point is that your credibility or sympathy ain't worth much.

But I would disagree that their tactics haven't gotten "people to listen" since they are now in negotiations to settle that particular claim. Another irony huh?

[Jack Weber]

There wasnt an ounce of truth in the first post, and Jerry probably cringed at the site of a +1 from you .

Shady, if I had the slightest inclination that you could (1) discern the truth, (2) speak the truth,and (3)not act like a trained monkey (apologies to trained monkies everywhere) much of what you say may be worth reading.

"Fred has a doughnut" becomes "tuna and peanut butter go well together" by the time you filter things through.

The Professor gets his cumuppance!!!

[charter.rights]

WHile I respect a groups right to protest, I cannot help but wonder what would happen if myself and a few dozen people blockaded a road and burnt houses and the such.

If you had a legitimate land claim, then nothing. But if your intent was purely for the sake of hooliganism then you would deserve not only arrest but by the use of force if you resisted. There is a huge difference between legitimate protest and you committing crimes.

I am pretty sure the police would have tear gassed us, rushed in and put us all under arrest.

Only if you resisted their orders to leave. See the G8/G20 protests....

To treat one group of people any different, ie. Give them privledges not afforded to others, is discrimination.

No it is not. The Charter protections afforded aboriginal people are there because we made deals with them in return for the use of their land with the guarantees that such use would not infringe on their right to move freely, and hunt and fish without interferences. Those promises were entrenched in law not because of race but because of agreements between two separate and sovereign nations. See the Jay Treaty

If we want to start adding up money, vis a vis the "trust fund" v. "expenses, taxes etc." I find the idea of hundreds of billions of dollars being owed to be a total joke. I am not saying that there might not be a few billion that is owed, but upwards of 1 trillion is lunacy. I cannot go to the person who bought 1/2 of my great grandfathers farm and tell him he now owes me the additional $745,000 that the land is now worth, plus the compounded interest on that money.

No one really cares whether or not you approve or think it is valid. The British took control of monies belonging to Six Nations in trust that would be used for their perpetual care, and as with all monies held in trust were obligated to add compounded interests over the term the full trusts were held. In just a few instances... there would have been well over $100,000 by 1800 that the Crown was holding on behalf of Six Nations and when 200 years of compounded interests are added according to the interest schedules laid out by and Order in Council, and later by the Bank of Canada, that base amount quickly calculates to the hundreds of billions of dollars. As an example, the Welland Canal lands (2400 acres) were worth between $12,000 and $14,000 when they were flooded in 1824. Using the compounded interests from Indian Affairs for the years since, the value of that trust account would be between $500,000 million and $1 billion today. That is only 175 year old trust.

We're not talking about lands claims money which would be added on top of the amounts owing on the trusts. So your example of trying to go back on some farmer is sophomoric at best.

BAck to Caledonia, I agree with Argus that it is the Tactics being used that are the issue. I cannot have sympathy for a group that quotes laws and treaties and then breaks the law at every turn trying to get it's message heard. To hold an entire community hostage is dispicable. To commit multiple acts of arson, vandalism and assault and then expect people to listen to you is laughable. The Tactics being used by the Natives have destroyed their credibility, and cost them my sympathy.

Natives are not looking for your sympathy since you really don't have any involvement in the issue. You are simply an uniformed bystander. The point is that the tactics of blocking roads and occupying land were not only successful but they were helped immensely by the escalations that the Caledonia clowns took it to. By counter protests and flag-raising etc. the clowns brought greater public awareness to the issues and put the government in a position where they had to take some action. So it opened the door to negotiation over confrontation and brought court challenges for the most part in support of the rule of law - that the Supreme Law of Canada requires that the government (and that includes municipalities) must consult, negotiate, accommodate, and reconcile BEFORE they approve development. So while you may object is ti of no consequence because it was effective and worthwhile at least for Six Nations.

Six Nations are as credible it not more credible today than they have ever been, mostly as a result of these kinds of protests with recognition by the courts that the government (and by default places like Haldimand and companies such as Platenex and Frontenac Ventures) are in the wrong. Your sympathy is about as important as the swill that comes out of the rear end of a pig. It might have some use once it is all broken down, but the stink when it is first presented is repulsive.

Footnote:

Historical Background Welland Canal Flooding Claim and Six Nations Grievances

Over a period of approximately 120 years, Six Nations representatives complained about the damage caused by the flooding and sought to obtain compensation. In 1949, the Six Nations sought compensation in a case called Miller v. The King, but the petition was dismissed by the Court.

There is no evidence that compensation has, to this day, been paid to the Six Nations of the Grand River for the value of the flooded lands.

Edited November 7, 2010 by charter.rights

[Argus]

If you had a legitimate land claim, then nothing. But if your intent was purely for the sake of hooliganism then you would deserve not only arrest but by the use of force if you resisted.

So hooliganism and lawbreaking is acceptable if it's because of a land claim, but not otherwise?

[dre]

So hooliganism and lawbreaking is acceptable if it's because of a land claim, but not otherwise?

Hooligansim and lawbreaking are the reason theres a land claim in the first place.

[charter.rights]

Hooligansim and lawbreaking are the reason theres a land claim in the first place.

Exactly.

[Shwa]

Hooligansim and lawbreaking are the reason theres a land claim in the first place.

LOFL!

That was a three-pointer and nothing but net.!

[Shwa]

So hooliganism and lawbreaking is acceptable if it's because of a land claim, but not otherwise?

No, there are all kinds of acceptable hooliganism and lawbreaking. The Kinmel Park Riots were one, the Winnipeg General Strike was another.

[Who's Doing What?]

Do you really think that they care about their credibility in your eyes or gaining your sympathy? Where was your credibility and sympathy when they were originally trying to settle this dispute decades ago? You didn't hear about it back then? Really?

My credibility is not in question.

I think they should care about how I view them and their struggle. I do vote. Big difference in voting someone in who wants to use the military versus someone who wants to negotiate a fair settlement.

Arson and assault are not tools of the righteous. You have the right to protest. Use it. Educate people. When I see this crap on the News all it does is detract from the Natives and their cause.

Of course, because it is only about the "tactics" now which, ironically enough, has brought your attention to what the issue is actually about in the first place. Is that about it?

I guess the point is that your credibility or sympathy ain't worth much.

But I would disagree that their tactics haven't gotten "people to listen" since they are now in negotiations to settle that particular claim. Another irony huh?

Your tactics will come back to bite you. What goes around comes around. At some point a group will try this illegal action in the wrong place and the entire Native population will lose.

Complete assimilation. Taxes for everyone. No preferential treatment of a certain race. Equality all around.

Even if you alienate people one by one eventually they will make up the majority and there will be a backlash. Personally I can't understand why new immigrants aren't completely pissed at the benifits Natives recieve.

I am part Native and my Wife qualifies for a status card, but step back and look at the whole picture. Armed occupation serves no one in the long run.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Who's Doing What?

[Wild Bill]

No, there are all kinds of acceptable hooliganism and lawbreaking. The Kinmel Park Riots were one, the Winnipeg General Strike was another.

You can believe that if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that to every action there are consequences.

The people of Caledonia lived in friendship and even blood ties for centuries before the recent protests. That relationship has been sadly damaged and will take generations to recover.

It's philosophy like yours that perpetuates hatred. Whenever you riot and engage in hooliganism there are always innocent victims who are collateral damage. Such victims rarely feel blase about being used as cannon fodder in someone else's protest! It's human nature to hate those who abuse you and not give a damn about their historical alibis.

Bruce Cockburn sang it best - "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make someone pay!"

There is no real justification for targeting innocents. Only a fool would expect those innocents not to harbour a grudge and if given the chance, seize a future opportunity for revenge.

You get more flies with honey...

[Who's Doing What?]

If you had a legitimate land claim, then nothing. But if your intent was purely for the sake of hooliganism then you would deserve not only arrest but by the use of force if you resisted. There is a huge difference between legitimate protest and you committing crimes.

Only if you resisted their orders to leave. See the G8/G20 protests....

Exactly. At the G20 I saw a lot of non-natives gettin their arses tossed in jail.

While at an armed stand of of natives nothing is done.

No it is not. The Charter protections afforded aboriginal people are there because we made deals with them in return for the use of their land with the guarantees that such use would not infringe on their right to move freely, and hunt and fish without interferences. Those promises were entrenched in law not because of race but because of agreements between two separate and sovereign nations. See the Jay Treaty

It doesn't matter if it is in the constitution or not. Discrimination is discrimination. Once you give special rights to a group based on race, religion, age, sex or any reason it is discrimination.

No one really cares whether or not you approve or think it is valid. The British took control of monies belonging to Six Nations in trust that would be used for their perpetual care, and as with all monies held in trust were obligated to add compounded interests over the term the full trusts were held. In just a few instances... there would have been well over $100,000 by 1800 that the Crown was holding on behalf of Six Nations and when 200 years of compounded interests are added according to the interest schedules laid out by and Order in Council, and later by the Bank of Canada, that base amount quickly calculates to the hundreds of billions of dollars. As an example, the Welland Canal lands (2400 acres) were worth between $12,000 and $14,000 when they were flooded in 1824. Using the compounded interests from Indian Affairs for the years since, the value of that trust account would be between $500,000 million and $1 billion today. That is only 175 year old trust.

We're not talking about lands claims money which would be added on top of the amounts owing on the trusts. So your example of trying to go back on some farmer is sophomoric at best.

So does your calculaions take into account the Crash of '29 and the Depression of the 1930's?

Any money held in trust would surely have been invested. Certainly there was a huge loss of equity.

Natives are not looking for your sympathy since you really don't have any involvement in the issue. You are simply an uniformed bystander. The point is that the tactics of blocking roads and occupying land were not only successful but they were helped immensely by the escalations that the Caledonia clowns took it to. By counter protests and flag-raising etc. the clowns brought greater public awareness to the issues and put the government in a position where they had to take some action. So it opened the door to negotiation over confrontation and brought court challenges for the most part in support of the rule of law - that the Supreme Law of Canada requires that the government (and that includes municipalities) must consult, negotiate, accommodate, and reconcile BEFORE they approve development. So while you may object is ti of no consequence because it was effective and worthwhile at least for Six Nations.

Six Nations are as credible it not more credible today than they have ever been, mostly as a result of these kinds of protests with recognition by the courts that the government (and by default places like Haldimand and companies such as Platenex and Frontenac Ventures) are in the wrong. Your sympathy is about as important as the swill that comes out of the rear end of a pig. It might have some use once it is all broken down, but the stink when it is first presented is repulsive.

HEy I'm not saying compensation isn't due. But an armed occupation is going to make me vote for the guy who'll call in the military.

[charter.rights]

You can believe that if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that to every action there are consequences.

The people of Caledonia lived in friendship and even blood ties for centuries before the recent protests. That relationship has been sadly damaged and will take generations to recover.

It's philosophy like yours that perpetuates hatred. Whenever you riot and engage in hooliganism there are always innocent victims who are collateral damage. Such victims rarely feel blase about being used as cannon fodder in someone else's protest! It's human nature to hate those who abuse you and not give a damn about their historical alibis.

Bruce Cockburn sang it best - "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make someone pay!"

There is no real justification for targeting innocents. Only a fool would expect those innocents not to harbour a grudge and if given the chance, seize a future opportunity for revenge.

You get more flies with honey...

You can live in a song if you want but I prefer reality to fantasy.

There are consequences for sure. And those consequences are the result of 200 years of ignoring claims, squatting on land that doesn't belong to us and approving development without adhering to our own laws. Ya we got bit, plenty.

But your claim that Caledonia was hurt by all this is a ruse. The REALITY is that the Caledonia clowns brought dissension to town. They help Caledonians expose their own underlying hatred and racism and as a result they lost business - from Six Nations who used to regularly shop there and from Tourism whom no one wants to visit anymore. The fact that Gary McHale still haunts the town does little for healing.

The lands claim is still outstanding and until it is settled once and for all, there will continue to be hard feelings. However, Caledonia brought this on themselves by trying to claim that they had some say in what was going down on the DCE. And if you want someone to blame, target Marie Trainer. It was here leadership that took Caledonia and Six Nations down that path. Six Nations was putting a stop to 200 years of abuse of their rights. They were not hurt by it, nor are they likely to. But as you suggested, we sure got bit in the ass by our culpability and complacency.

[charter.rights]

Exactly. At the G20 I saw a lot of non-natives gettin their arses tossed in jail.

While at an armed stand of of natives nothing is done.

Incorrect. There was no "armed stand" of natives anywhere. It was a peaceful protest and occupation by women, their children and old people that only got out of hand when the OPP came with excessive force to execute an illegal injunction. The OPP's only role after that (once they found out that civil injunctions were not enforceable) was to keep the peace. The sh$T disturbers were from Caledonia after that and the OPP were facing them most the time.

It doesn't matter if it is in the constitution or not. Discrimination is discrimination. Once you give special rights to a group based on race, religion, age, sex or any reason it is discrimination.

What an ultra-maroon! Canada is based on the recognition of the rule of law, and that Supreme Law says that the land belongs to Six Nations unless we can prove they surrendered it. It wasn't surrendered, I can assure you. Again, status is not given to Six Nations because of their race. It is afforded because we don't go back on agreements and those agreements are enforceable by law.

So does your calculaions take into account the Crash of '29 and the Depression of the 1930's?

Any money held in trust would surely have been invested. Certainly there was a huge loss of equity.

Yes. The tables of interests to be paid on trust accounts - which at the time was an Order in Council - accounts for all the years the interest rates fluctuated. It even includes the boom times as well where interest rates went all the way up to 14% for a couple of years. Compounded that growth from interests skyrocketed the trusts during those periods.

HEy I'm not saying compensation isn't due. But an armed occupation is going to make me vote for the guy who'll call in the military.

Don't be so daft. The military would not be brought in to fight a conflict where Canada is in the wrong. But here's another one for Canadien. Another moron calling for the genocide of native people just because he disagrees with the law.

[Argus]

Hooligansim and lawbreaking are the reason theres a land claim in the first place.

Really? Care to expand upon that? I mean, one of the problems with settling land claims is that despite what you and the other apologists for native violence like to pretend, many large claims are disputed among the natives themselves, never mind with "Canada". Many places are claimed by multiple tribes, and often enough the evidence on the natives part is sketchy at best, consisting of "My great uncle heard from his grandfather that some white man said we'd get some money for this."

[Argus]

LOFL!

That was a three-pointer and nothing but net.!

Love to see all the bleeding heart lefties giggling and snickering and elbowing each in support of violence and anarchy - so long as its brown people doing it - to someone else.

[Argus]

No, there are all kinds of acceptable hooliganism and lawbreaking. The Kinmel Park Riots were one, the Winnipeg General Strike was another.

Oh Gawd! This dreary old tactic!

"The natives aren't barbarians and hooligans because if you look back a century or two or maybe a thousand years or so, your ancestors were mean to people too!"

What this seems to revolve around is that if at any point or time in history white people weren't completely civilized, well then, we have no right to chastise brown people for being uncivilized NOW.

Which is both an intellectually and morally bankrupt argument, of course.

[Shady]

Love to see all the bleeding heart lefties giggling and snickering and elbowing each in support of violence and anarchy - so long as its brown people doing it - to someone else.

Exactly. It's pretty pathetic. When it comes to Natives, they must be treated in accordance with the law, no matter what. However, when the situations are reversed. Natives are allowed to break the law, and commit violent acts against ordinary Canadian citizens.

If the courts and the governments are taking too long to resolve land claims, then protest the courts and the governments. Don't take it out on people that have nothing to do with it. All that is successful in doing is alienating people that would otherwise understand and agree with their cause.

[charter.rights]

Really? Care to expand upon that? I mean, one of the problems with settling land claims is that despite what you and the other apologists for native violence like to pretend, many large claims are disputed among the natives themselves, never mind with "Canada". Many places are claimed by multiple tribes, and often enough the evidence on the natives part is sketchy at best, consisting of "My great uncle heard from his grandfather that some white man said we'd get some money for this."

Maybe you should listen more carefully...

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the sui generis of aboriginal title is a personal and usufructary right...meaning that many FN can be using and claiming the same space. However, under the law, treaties with one FN does not abrogate the others title to the land. Thus there is no conflict between various FN.

There is plenty of evidence on who occupied where through historical records of post contact encounters. So the government must deal with all FN claiming a particular territory.

[charter.rights]

Love to see all the bleeding heart lefties giggling and snickering and elbowing each in support of violence and anarchy - so long as its brown people doing it - to someone else.

Bullshit. The violence was perpetrated against Six Nations by the OPP. They took a defensive position and the OPP had to face the real hooligans - Caledonians.

[charter.rights]

Exactly. It's pretty pathetic. When it comes to Natives, they must be treated in accordance with the law, no matter what. However, when the situations are reversed. Natives are allowed to break the law, and commit violent acts against ordinary Canadian citizens.

If the courts and the governments are taking too long to resolve land claims, then protest the courts and the governments. Don't take it out on people that have nothing to do with it. All that is successful in doing is alienating people that would otherwise understand and agree with their cause.

They are protesting the courts and governments. However the also have a right to stop development on those lands until the conflicts are resolved. Allowing development would simply nullify their claims to have the land returned. They don't want the money. They want their own land back.

And you don't speak for "most people". We established that a long time ago. So it isn't important if you or anyone else supports them. They have our law on their side and that is all that matters.

Edited November 7, 2010 by charter.rights

[Who's Doing What?]

Incorrect. There was no "armed stand" of natives anywhere. It was a peaceful protest and occupation by women, their children and old people that only got out of hand when the OPP came with excessive force to execute an illegal injunction. The OPP's only role after that (once they found out that civil injunctions were not enforceable) was to keep the peace. The sh$T disturbers were from Caledonia after that and the OPP were facing them most the time.

If you want to call arson a peaceful protest.

What an ultra-maroon! Canada is based on the recognition of the rule of law, and that Supreme Law says that the land belongs to Six Nations unless we can prove they surrendered it. It wasn't surrendered, I can assure you. Again, status is not given to Six Nations because of their race. It is afforded because we don't go back on agreements and those agreements are enforceable by law.

Is this the same law you flaunt when committing arson and assault?

Yes. The tables of interests to be paid on trust accounts - which at the time was an Order in Council - accounts for all the years the interest rates fluctuated. It even includes the boom times as well where interest rates went all the way up to 14% for a couple of years. Compounded that growth from interests skyrocketed the trusts during those periods.

Does it subtract the expenditures the GOvt. has made on behalf of the native? Lack of tax revenue from property and education taxes? As well as the money from hunting and fishing licenses? The taxes on all purchases made by a native during those 200 years?

Don't be so daft. The military would not be brought in to fight a conflict where Canada is in the wrong. But here's another one for Canadien. Another moron calling for the genocide of native people just because he disagrees with the law.

The only reason Canada is in the wrong is because there is still enough public sentiment to make it so. Keep pissing off the public and that sentiment is going to change. Soon Canada won't be in the wrong because the majority of it's populace says it isn't in the wrong.

Try and grasp the big picture here. Your antics are only tolerated because poeple have sympathy for you. Keep pissing us off 1 by 1 and the landscape will change.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Who's Doing What?