Caledonia The town That Law Forgot

[Who's Doing What?]

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.

"Lefty" Give me a break. Any free thinking person can see the double standard here. Drawing aline between political leanings is stupid. This is far beyond partisan politics.

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

[Shady]

However the also have a right to stop development on those lands until the conflicts are resolved.

They have a right to attempt to stop development through legal means. Not through violence and vigilantism. Condoning such activity only fosters more of it. On both sides. Shame on you.

[charter.rights]

If you want to call arson a peaceful protest.

No one knows who burned the bridge or the substation. So your accessing blame when the OPP don't even know who did it is pedantic at best.

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

It is the same law that Caledonians got off on when they committed their assaults.

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?

Nope because those are our expenses. As far as tax goes the tax exemption stems from the promises made in the Royal Proclamation 1763 and so it never figures into the calculations.

Hunting and fishing licences? WTF? There are no licences and regulation was placed on us because we couldn't behave ourselves.

You are just trying to be obtuse or you are pretty stupid. Want to know what my guess is?

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 again. Canadians are subservient to the Crown and nothing we do, no vote we take in isolation from aboriginal people is going to change ANYTHING. Your invisible majority doesn't exist. The Constitution however, does and it says that nothing (and that would mean any Constitutional Conference) can abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal right. So you are out to lunch, plain and simple.

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

You are insignificant in the scale of aboriginal issues. What is really funny is you thinking that your voice or your vote counts for something. It doesn't. End of story.

Edited November 7, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

They have a right to attempt to stop development through legal means. Not through violence and vigilantism. Condoning such activity only fosters more of it. On both sides. Shame on you.

Occupation and stopping development is a legal means. It is called proprietary estoppel.

[Shady]

Occupation and stopping development is a legal means.

Nope. law breaking in order to compensate for some other injustice is still law breaking. As is the destruction of other people's property. Going through legal processes can be painfully slow. And in many cases too slow for the good of all of us. But condoning vigilantism only begets more of it. And treating one group of people above the law only fosters unhealthy problems in society. Even if that group has a legitimate greivance.

[charter.rights]

Nope. law breaking in order to compensate for some other injustice is still law breaking. As is the destruction of other people's property. Going through legal processes can be painfully slow. And in many cases too slow for the good of all of us. But condoning vigilantism only begets more of it. And treating one group of people above the law only fosters unhealthy problems in society. Even if that group has a legitimate greivance.

In your opinion....which is wrong. The legal term 'proprietary estoppel' is a little used but still effective legal means under common law to stop a third party from interfering with your rights. It is as valid as the aboriginal right to consultation.

Maybe you should catch up with the issues. This is a 200 year old grievance and you are notoriously out of touch.

[Shwa]

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.

But the fact of the matter is that your credibility and support are useless and always has been. That you come into this game, this later, indicates you are a fourth stringer, nothing more.

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.

What really detracts from the "Native and their cause" is the righteous, expounding upon the law, after the fact. Not only is it cheap, but rather gutless too.

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.

Well, they aren't my tactics for one, and for two, talk is cheap. See above.

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.

Probably because they have taken a couple of basic Canadian history courses.

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.

Well, I already asked you: where were you 10 years ago, long before the armed occupation?

Edited November 8, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

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

Yes and now look at the consequences, the issue is being dealt with at the negotiation table. Wha....?

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.

I hardly think so. Not as long as the cheap smokes are on one side and the Timmies on the other. Do the math. Plus, there is always Hagarsville...

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!"

No, Rage Against the Machine sang it best - pick any song you like.

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...

Spoken like a true cowboy. No doubt a treatise developed at the local country bar on a Saturday night. Yee haw.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

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.

Really? Is that how you see my "tactic" is to show how violent conflicts lead to positive social change? Oh right, no, it's about "white people" and "brown people."

I bet you didn't even click those links did you?

Man 'o man Argus, you really can be thick you know that? Not just ordinary thickness, but practised, of course.

[charter.rights]

Really? Is that how you see my "tactic" is to show how violent conflicts lead to positive social change? Oh right, no, it's about "white people" and "brown people."

I bet you didn't even click those links did you?

Man 'o man Argus, you really can be thick you know that? Not just ordinary thickness, but practised, of course.

He must work for government as a lackey.Not only does he hide the truth but he is very practised at trying to dodge it as well. He isn't very good at it mind you and it is probably why he is just some clerk in the basement mailroom pushing a cart.

[charter.rights]

Nope. law breaking in order to compensate for some other injustice is still law breaking. As is the destruction of other people's property. Going through legal processes can be painfully slow. And in many cases too slow for the good of all of us. But condoning vigilantism only begets more of it. And treating one group of people above the law only fosters unhealthy problems in society. Even if that group has a legitimate greivance.

You don't understand the law, that much is obvious.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands above any other laws. Aboriginal rights stand above the Charter in that no other right can abrogate or derogate from aboriginal rights. When the government refuses to comply with the law, such as consultation, then under common law Six Nations is entitled to self-help, i.e. proprietary estoppel to stop further actions that continue to infringe upon their right to absolute title and use of that land.

The occupation of the DCE was not only in accordance with our law but it was done more importantly in accordance with theirs. DCE and Caledonia are on their land (according to their claims) and as such the Supreme Court has rule they have 'superior title' which is not only superior to the property owners and the developers but also any claim the government has over it. So until the government can prove that the lands were in fact surrendered (but given the evidence they have provided so far it doesn't meet the Chippewas of Sarnia test) Six Nations has an absolute right to occupy, police and even defend it against trespassers (which the OPP were doing when they raided the site to enforce an illegal injunction).

So your little brain may hurt at the thought of it, but the fact is that everything was done in accordance with the rule of law.

It is agreed that there were some tussles here and there and people on both sides of the issue were arrested and charged. Most of the charges were dropped or minimal sentences were handed out on both sides. However, that does not detract from the fact that the occupation was and is legal. Get over it.

[Shwa]

Nope. law breaking in order to compensate for some other injustice is still law breaking. As is the destruction of other people's property. Going through legal processes can be painfully slow. And in many cases too slow for the good of all of us. But condoning vigilantism only begets more of it. And treating one group of people above the law only fosters unhealthy problems in society. Even if that group has a legitimate greivance.

Of course, this also appies to the police as noted in this series of stories from the Toronto Star.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Shwa

[Argus]

Bullshit. The violence was perpetrated against Six Nations by the OPP.

This kind of Soviet era propaganda mentality bullshit of yours is why I believe absolutely nothing you write.

[Argus]

Really? Is that how you see my "tactic" is to show how violent conflicts lead to positive social change? Oh right, no, it's about "white people" and "brown people."

I don't think people like you are capable of thinking beyond white people and brown people. It colours all your views, so to speak.

So you think if we bring in the military and kill a bunch of mowhawk warriors it might lead to positive social changes?

[Argus]

He must work for government as a lackey.Not only does he hide the truth but he is very practised at trying to dodge it as well.

Since nothing you spit out has even a passing acquaintance with truth or honesty no dodges are required.

[Argus]

Of course, this also appies to the police as noted in this series of stories from the Toronto Star.

S'funny, but I've been following that series with considerable indignation. But you know, at no time did i think "well, because the police often get away with things me and my pals should be able to beat people and destroy their property too!"

Guess it just shows how differently people like you think.

[charter.rights]

This kind of Soviet era propaganda mentality bullshit of yours is why I believe absolutely nothing you write.

That is why you are not credible. You would deny the holocaust.

Maybe you should read up a bit more on what actually went down there. You are obviously unable to understand with such limited capacity.

Edited November 8, 2010 by charter.rights

[Who's Doing What?]

That is why you are not credible. You would deny the holocaust.

Maybe you should read up a bit more on what actually went down there. You are obviously unable to understand with such limited capacity.

OK You brought up Hitler/Holocaust. You automatically lose.

Keep doing what you are doing. Eventually enough people will get pissed off and the hammer will come down.

[Shwa]

I don't think people like you are capable of thinking beyond white people and brown people. It colours all your views, so to speak.

Seriously Argus, a practiced thickness. Perhaps I am being too unkind, are you borderline autistic by chance?

So you think if we bring in the military and kill a bunch of mowhawk warriors it might lead to positive social changes?

Are you talking about a Rwanda-like situation now? Is that what you are getting out of this? I thought CR was totally joking but I see he wasn't. Good Gawd.

[bloodyminded]

OK You brought up Hitler/Holocaust. You automatically lose.

Keep doing what you are doing. Eventually enough people will get pissed off and the hammer will come down.

It was a direct response to another poster, who brought up "Soviet era propaganda."

Odd that you take to task the person who doesn't align with you politically, rather than the instigator of this debate method.

So it's not the reference, but the poster.

[Shwa]

S'funny, but I've been following that series with considerable indignation. But you know, at no time did i think "well, because the police often get away with things me and my pals should be able to beat people and destroy their property too!"

Guess it just shows how differently people like you think.

It sure does Argus. For instance, I like to hold the righteous to their own standards, you know, to see how well their righteousness stands up to scrutiny. In your case, not so much. You are incapable of even scrutinizing your own righteousness. That is far worse than some dusty old Gramma standing up for her rights. Between the two of you, one has guts. And it ain't you.

[charter.rights]

It was a direct response to another poster, who brought up "Soviet era propaganda."

Odd that you take to task the person who doesn't align with you politically, rather than the instigator of this debate method.

So it's not the reference, but the poster.

Don't worry about it. The masters of the house got beat and now the mice are running rampant looking for scraps.

[Argus]

It was a direct response to another poster, who brought up "Soviet era propaganda."

Odd that you take to task the person who doesn't align with you politically, rather than the instigator of this debate method.

So it's not the reference, but the poster.

Well there's no question it is with you and this nonsensical complaint. I brought up the Soviet era propaganda as a type of in your face, total, bald-faced lying denial that we recognize from backwards retrograde countries like that. I did not accuse the poster of being a communist or wanting to murder people, now did I? And his "No, there was no violence by native people" is worthy of being called total bullshit. So I did. You think that equates to Holocaust Denial?

And you have the gall to self-righteously accuse others of criticizing the side they disagree with? Phhht.

[Argus]

Don't worry about it. The masters of the house got beat and now the mice are running rampant looking for scraps.

Is that an admission you and most of those like you are on social assistance?

[charter.rights]

Is that an admission you and most of those like you are on social assistance?

Think about it...mouse...

Edited November 10, 2010 by charter.rights