Authorities racist in Caledonia?

[Guest Peeves]

It seems some can demonstrate and break the laws while others are selected for arrests and charges.

Isn't that in the case of Caledonia, simply racist policies supported by government agency?

I think so.

Meanwhile, Gary Mchale is asking “where is the PC Party?”, adding “will you ever speak out”, “where is Toby Barrett?”.

The activist says the Conservatives should be “ashamed” that after 6 years, they continue to give Premier Dalton McGuinty “a free ride” regarding what he calls the “OPP racist policing policies”.

McHale also says any Conservative MPP’s with the courage to “want to know more” and do more to help average voters to contact him.

http://cd989.com/2012/04/peace-friendship-and-respect-rally-was-indeed-peaceful/

Edited April 30, 2012 by Peeves

[jacee]

It seems some can demonstrate and break the laws while others are selected for arrests and charges.

Isn't that in the case of Caledonia, simply racist policies supported by government agency?

I think so.

Meanwhile, Gary Mchale is asking “where is the PC Party?”, adding “will you ever speak out”, “where is Toby Barrett?”.

The activist says the Conservatives should be “ashamed” that after 6 years, they continue to give Premier Dalton McGuinty “a free ride” regarding what he calls the “OPP racist policing policies”.

McHale also says any Conservative MPP’s with the courage to “want to know more” and do more to help average voters to contact him.

http://cd989.com/2012/04/peace-friendship-and-respect-rally-was-indeed-peaceful/

It was a beautiful day and a great crowd and a nice march. People came to to watch and participate in support.

There were a few of McHale-type loonies around, one with a baseball bat and some idiots yelling but they were very out of place.

This was a nice crowd, both marching and on the street watching.

There are more people who want peace and justice than want to make trouble.

It really is time for the federal government to stop stalling and make some progress in resolving these long outstanding claims.

[Savant]

The only 'racist' thing happening in Caledonia is the double standard that sees one 'race' (First Nations) allowed to flout the law, while those who live in the area (non First Nations) are harassed, threatened and police do nothing about it.

I've had many a debate with people about this, and when I bump into the rare supporter of First Nations, I just hand them a copy of Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless" and then wait for the reality to set in. Once they have finished reading it they are usually shell shocked.

The only ones who have 'failed' here are the First Nations residents who put themselves above Canadian law by invading DCE and attacking local residents. They deserve nothing so long as they continue to ignore Canadian law.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm glad that this rally happened. It seems to be another example of people doing themselves what their governments can't do.

[Guest Peeves]

The only 'racist' thing happening in Caledonia is the double standard that sees one 'race' (First Nations) allowed to flout the law, while those who live in the area (non First Nations) are harassed, threatened and police do nothing about it.

I've had many a debate with people about this, and when I bump into the rare supporter of First Nations, I just hand them a copy of Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless" and then wait for the reality to set in. Once they have finished reading it they are usually shell shocked.

The only ones who have 'failed' here are the First Nations residents who put themselves above Canadian law by invading DCE and attacking local residents. They deserve nothing so long as they continue to ignore Canadian law.

My point.

[Savant]

My point.

I was agreeing with you...

For anyone interested, there is an excerpt from Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless", at the link below...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/caledonia-the-town-that-law-forgot/article1769901/singlepage/#articlecontent

It offers just a glimpse into what went on. There were other excerpts published, I'll see if I can dig them up. I was literally awestruck at what went on after reading her book.

For whatever reason the police in Canada only seem capable of two responses. Extreme pacifism, or excessive force.

[jacee]

The only 'racist' thing happening in Caledonia is the double standard that sees one 'race' (First Nations) allowed to flout the law, while those who live in the area (non First Nations) are harassed, threatened and police do nothing about it.

I've had many a debate with people about this, and when I bump into the rare supporter of First Nations, I just hand them a copy of Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless" and then wait for the reality to set in. Once they have finished reading it they are usually shell shocked.

The only ones who have 'failed' here are the First Nations residents who put themselves above Canadian law by invading DCE and attacking local residents. They deserve nothing so long as they continue to ignore Canadian law.

"Canadian law" says Six Nations should have been consulted before and development was ever planned for that land. The Supreme Court case law was clear about that. The lack of appropriate local policy does not excuse them from the law.

The racism is centuries old in that area but only infects some who still want to pretend that sovereignty and land rights were somehow taken away from Six Nations, and usually those who wish to make a profit off the land in some way, without any benefit to Six Nations.

The only people not welcome on the site are those who have shown ill intent in the past: Race has nothing to do with it. There's a lot of BS and some very serious blatant lies in Blatchford's book. She swallowed the racist propaganda whole, without verifying her 'sources' or the law. When confronted, she retreated and her 'book tour' was ended by her publisher. The Globe and Mail dropped her after it was published. She's now more appropriately back at the National Post.

The ones who have failed are those who keep trying to fan the flames of racism to serve their own ends and for personal gain. Charges have been laid, sentences have been served, compensation has been paid to affected residents. There's nothing to be gained from this negative approach you espouse, spider, and thankfully it wasn't much in evidence on Sat. Instead, I saw interested people on the streets, still afraid to openly support Six Nations but friendly nonetheless.

What remains now, as always, is for the federal government to acknowledge its liability and negotiate resolutions, but they continue to refuse.

The march was intended to draw national attention to the fact that the feds are still absent from any discussions and have displayed no 'good faith' intentions.

Personally, I don't believe they ever had any intentions of settlement, but they

sure spent a lot of our tax dollars on high-priced 'negotiators' for appearances only.

It's in the interest of everyone to resolve the issues, and I think both communities prefer that. It would be nice if the government would cooperate, but ...

At least it was a nice day, a peaceful march and it's to be hoped a step toward better local relations.

The site itself could be a wonderful educational site, with the village that stood there rebuilt. As a key location for the fur trade, it dates to before settlement and an era not well known. It's possible that the provincial government could pursue this without the feds, with some public support.

Edited May 2, 2012 by jacee

[Guest Peeves]

"Canadian law" says Six Nations should have been consulted before and development was ever planned for that land.

The racism is centuries old in that area but only infects some who still want to pretend that sovereignty and land rights were somehow taken away from Six Nations, and usually those who wish to make a profit off the land in some way.

There's a lot of BS and some very serious blatant lies in Blatchford's book. She swallowed the racist propaganda whole, without verifying her 'sources'. When confronted, she retreated and her 'book tour' was ended. The Globe and Mail dropped her after it was published.

The ones who have failed are those who keep trying to fan the flames of racism to serve their own ends and for personal gain. Charges have been laid, sentences have been served, compensation has been paid to affected residents. There's nothing to be gained from this negative approach.

What remains now, as always, is for the federal government to acknowledge its liability and negotiate resolutions, but they continue to refuse.

The march was intended to draw national attention to the fact that the feds are still absent from any discussions and have displayed no 'good faith' intentions.

Personally, I don't believe they ever had any intentions of settlement, but they

sure spent a lot of our tax dollars on high-priced 'negotiators' for appearances only.

It's in the interest of everyone to resolve the issues, and I think both communities prefer that. It would be nice if the government would cooperate, but ...

At least it was a nice day, a peaceful march and it's to be hoped a step toward better local relations.

The site itself could be a wonderful educational site, with the village that stood there rebuilt. As a key location for the fur trade, it dates to before settlement and an era not well known. It's possible that the provincial government could pursue this without the feds, with some public support.

What you say is hardly supported by the facts in evidence, and,Christie Blatchford stuck to the facts. Otherwise point out her errors. She was extremely careful to be unbiased. I've heard those criticise the book, but not for errors or bigotry, but because it was critical.

If you don't like the truth as to how the natives have been painted, tell us the insurrection and violence, and rampant unacceptable behavior from your side/ perspective. Never mind 'the native claims' I refer to the native illegal behavior.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

I was agreeing with you...

I got that...shook me up.

[Savant]

"Canadian law" says Six Nations should have been consulted before and development was ever planned for that land.

And there was a signed statement by 37 chiefs that said they WERE consulted about it when they surrended the land in 1841. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about agreements being signed by native ancestors that current generations refuse to respect, yet they expect the current government to respect agreements signed by the governments of the day from over a century ago. Furthrremore, the courts issued an injunction against the First Nations ordering them off the property. The law applies to everyone, native and non.

There's a lot of BS and some very serious blatant lies in Blatchford's book. She swallowed the racist propaganda whole, without verifying her 'sources' or the law. When confronted, she retreated and her 'book tour' was ended by her publisher. The Globe and Mail dropped her after it was published. She's now more appropriately back at the National Post.

Wow you have so many facts wrong here, I don't know where to start. She wasn't 'dropped' by the Globe & Mail after publishing the book. In fact, the Globe & Mail went to great lengths to highlight her book, including a number of excerpts, as well as fasciliating an online Q & A with readers. For the record, it was Blatchford who left the Globe to return to the Post. Even the Globe said that much. Furthermore, it happened nearly a year later.

Next, you do know that Christie Blatchford is an award winning writer, right? She's won a National Newspaper Award, as well as receiving the Governor General's Literary Award in 2008 her previous book, "Fifteen Days: Stories of Bravery, Friendship, Life and Death from Inside the New Canadian Army". Trying to slag an author of her caliber is pretty silly imho.

Lastly, it's the epitome of ignorance to bash a book without having read it. So unless you have read it cover to cover, please don't humiliate yourself by suggesting that you somehow have any knowledge about the contents. I'm holding the book in my hands. If you want to debate the merits of it, let's do so. However, I won't debate anyone about a book they haven't actually read. Please don't waste my time.

You talk about 'peace', where was this 'peace' when they nearly murdered someone there? I could rattle off a dozen more violent incidents as well.

So please, don't make a mockery of the word 'peace' by using it to apply to the First Nations people involved in this. They have blood on their hands.

[jacee]

I was literally awestruck at what went on after reading her book.

That's understandable, Savant (I see you are using only your last name).

Some of us are more easily baffled by bullsh!t than others.

I have no interest in dredging up the misrepresentation, misinformation and racism propagated by Gary McHale and Christie Blatchford. I'll leave them to their own karma.

It all hinges on land claims, which Blatchford dismisses, along with Aboriginal and treaty rights (the Constitution). Her position seems pretty "dubious" to me.

I will only try to clarify that underlying issue by addressing the Federal government's handling of the land claim relevant to the Douglas Creek Estates: The property is a small part of the Plank Road Claim that extends half a mile on either side of Hwy 6 for the width of the Haldimand Tract. It includes the town of Caledonia, and is thus an extremely volatile issue.

Here is Six Nations summary:

http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/cslc5.htm

The issue is whether these lands were ever legally 'surrendered' to Canada by Six Nations - which of course would hinge upon whether appropriate compensation was ever agreed upon AND PAID.

I checked the federal government's chronology and this is the only mention of the Plank Road claim:

April 22, 2006: Representatives from all sides agree to talk about settling the DCE/Plank Road claim and to appoint ‘principal' representatives for each party.

There is no further mention of the Plank Road claim.

There is no resolution of that claim, nor has it been formally 'rejected'.

It is still outstanding and still extremely divisive, and key to understanding the volatile responses of some in Caledonia, and it can't be dismissed.

You'd think if the federal government had proof of payment they would bring it forward and end the uncertainty and volatility ... but they haven't.

I am hopeful that a new spirit of peace and friendship will be allowed to emerge. It's to be hoped that those who seek only to twist information and cause continuing division will be overruled. I find spiderfish's motives highly questionable in that regard.

I understand that some people in Caledonia know for a fact that there was some payment for their lots, and others don't know.

[jacee]

What you say is hardly supported by the facts in evidence, and,Christie Blatchford stuck to the facts. Otherwise point out her errors. She was extremely careful to be unbiased. I've heard those criticise the book, but not for errors or bigotry, but because it was critical.

If you don't like the truth as to how the natives have been painted, tell us the insurrection and violence, and rampant unacceptable behavior from your side/ perspective. Never mind 'the native claims' I refer to the native illegal behavior.

Those are my perceptions and understandings.

Only liars claim to be "unbiased".

Only resolution of land claims matters to me.

It is a matter of national honour.

[Savant]

That's understandable, Savant (I see you are using only your last name).

Wow, really? That's the best you got? (Since my user name flummoxes you, I'll give you a hint, it's french, not english.)

It all hinges on land claims, which Blatchford dismisses, along with Aboriginal and treaty rights (the Constitution). Her position seems pretty "dubious" to me.

Again your ignorance betrays you. Seeing as you haven't read the book, you are ignorant to the fact that her book was NOT about the land claims at all.

Let me quote from the first freaking page of her introduction.

"This book is not about aboriginal land claims."

That's the problem with ignorance, people unfortunately speak without knowing what they are talking about. You obviously haven't read the book, or you would know that your remarks are completely baseless. She didn't "dismiss" land claims, as you ignorantly suggested. In actual fact she doesn't cover the land claims at all. That's not what the book was about.

At all.

Why not grab a copy from your local library and read it? Then you can bash it all you like without appearing ignorant.

[jacee]

And there was a signed statement by 37 chiefs that said they WERE consulted about it when they surrended the land in 1841. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about agreements being signed by native ancestors that current generations refuse to respect, yet they expect the current government to respect agreements signed by the governments of the day from over a century ago. Furthrremore, the courts issued an injunction against the First Nations ordering them off the property. The law applies to everyone, native and non.

December 14, 2006: The Ontario Court of Appeal released its finding that Superior Court Justice T. David Marshall had erred in calling for enforcement of an injunction to remove protestors from the DCE lands.

Speaking of spin ...

But seriously ... where's the federal government's accounting for payment?

That's the normal process to prove a legal transfer of land - proof of payment. Don't you think the feds should just produce it to end the uncertainty?

Don't you think Canadians should demand that?

Edited May 3, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

Wow, really? That's the best you got? (Since my user name flummoxes you, I'll give you a hint, it's french, not english.)

Yes I know.

Again your ignorance betrays you. Seeing as you haven't read the book, you are ignorant to the fact that her book was NOT about the land claims at all.

Let me quote from the first freaking page of her introduction.

That's the problem with ignorance, people unfortunately speak without knowing what they are talking about. You obviously haven't read the book, or you would know that your remarks are completely baseless. She didn't "dismiss" land claims, as you ignorantly suggested. In actual fact she doesn't cover the land claims at all. That's not what the book was about.

At all.

No it isn't, because she dismissed them as irrelevant ... but she was wrong about that.

The land claims are all that is important going forward.

Why not grab a copy from your local library and read it? Then you can bash it all you like without appearing ignorant.

Not interested.

I was there.

She wasn't.

And the only issue of interest to me is the resolution of the land claims, because I think that's what is needed for real peace in the communities.

[Savant]

Again your ignorance betrays you. Seeing as you haven't read the book, you are ignorant to the fact that her book was NOT about the land claims at all.

No it isn't, because she dismissed them as irrelevant ... but she was wrong about that.

The land claims are all that is important going forward.

You just don't get it. She didn't dismiss the land claims since the book wasn't about the land claims. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this. Frankly your ignornace in this regard is perplexing, since you seem to think that you can speak about something you haven't read.

[jacee]

I'm glad that this rally happened. It seems to be another example of people doing themselves what their governments can't do.

I've been musing about your post ...

I'm glad it happened too. I think it's a step in the right direction, and it is something only people can organize, not governments.

But the real work in resolving people's discomfort and uncertainty belongs to the federal government. They must provide an accounting for the money from land surrenders, sales and leases etc. that was to accrue to Six Nations trust, for the Plank Road claim.

And that was the message from the people too.

And I hope we do it again, and I hope more people will join us in saying to Ottawa that a proper accounting is required.

It is something that only people can do.

Adding some news links ...

http://www.thespec.com/iphone/news/article/714328--friendship-walk-peaceful-but-caledonia-residents-fear-wounds-reopened

http://www.delhinewsrecord.com/2012/04/29/caledonia-reacts-to-peace-walk

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2012/04/28/400-take-part-in-caledonia-peace-march

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/05/01/some-residents-of-six-nations-stage-a-rally-and-walk-for-peace/

The Mayors of Haldimand County have maintained a negative stance toward the Six Nations land rights issues. It's nice to see a small glimmer of local residents speaking up who understand the treaty issues.

That in itself makes the rally a success.

Edited May 3, 2012 by jacee

[Guest Peeves]

I've been musing about your post ...

I'm glad it happened too. I think it's a step in the right direction, and it is something only people can organize, not governments.

But the real work in resolving people's discomfort and uncertainty belongs to the federal government. They must provide an accounting for the money from land surrenders, sales and leases etc. that was to accrue to Six Nations trust, for the Plank Road claim.

And that was the message from the people too.

And I hope we do it again, and I hope more people will join us in saying to Ottawa that a proper accounting is required.

It is something that only people can do.

Adding some news links ...

http://www.thespec.com/iphone/news/article/714328--friendship-walk-peaceful-but-caledonia-residents-fear-wounds-reopened

http://www.delhinewsrecord.com/2012/04/29/caledonia-reacts-to-peace-walk

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2012/04/28/400-take-part-in-caledonia-peace-march

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/05/01/some-residents-of-six-nations-stage-a-rally-and-walk-for-peace/

The Mayors of Haldimand County have maintained a negative stance toward the Six Nations land rights issues. It's nice to see a small glimmer of local residents speaking up who understand the treaty issues.

That in itself makes the rally a success.

So do you support the native violent behavior, insurrection and denial of rights to other citizens?

Or are you in denial that such took place?

[jacee]

So do you support the native violent behavior, insurrection and denial of rights to other citizens?

Or are you in denial that such took place?

What positive resolution are you seeking Peeves?

There are a few like you who choose to remain mired in conflict, but it's not helpful in the current struggle to find a positive way forward. Some are local people committed, for whatever reason, to opposing Six Nations. Others are non-local opportunists making money (donations, book sales, etc.) from trying to stir up emotions and conflict. I know "Savant" is the latter. Which are you, Peeves?

People have been charged.

Sentences have been served.

Lawsuits have been heard.

Compensation has been paid.

Confidentiality agreements have been signed.

There's really nothing to be said about any of that anymore.

People are turning their attention back to the real issue of resolving the land rights issues to provide certainty to both communities, and a constructive way forward.

[boobowa]

The words 'consultation'(advise and discuss), and 'surrendering'seem to be a contradiction in terms. Consultation implies reasonable negotiation while surrendering means to accede or 'agree'while under the burden of unequal power distribution over whatever the issue is. We then have to ask the nature of these 'consultations'in view of dominating factors of the time such as language, cultural differences, strife, and saturation or and of one culture presiding over another.Simply because those older generations signed a legal document admitting to prior consultation before land was surrendered; does not prove however, that they were NOT bludgeoned into doing so by a well considered but overwhelming imbalance of power. Indeed, consultation does not have to be neutral, on the contrary it is a tool of persuasion at its tamest, and most damning at its worst.

[Wild Bill]

The words 'consultation'(advise and discuss), and 'surrendering'seem to be a contradiction in terms. Consultation implies reasonable negotiation while surrendering means to accede or 'agree'while under the burden of unequal power distribution over whatever the issue is. We then have to ask the nature of these 'consultations'in view of dominating factors of the time such as language, cultural differences, strife, and saturation or and of one culture presiding over another.Simply because those older generations signed a legal document admitting to prior consultation before land was surrendered; does not prove however, that they were NOT bludgeoned into doing so by a well considered but overwhelming imbalance of power. Indeed, consultation does not have to be neutral, on the contrary it is a tool of persuasion at its tamest, and most damning at its worst.

Not again!

Listen! It's not about land claims! Those are a separate issue! It's about violence and a double standard in applying the law!

The natives could get 100% of what they claim in Caledonia and it will still be irrelevant to the townsfolk. Their issue is what THEY endured!

It's like the natives punched townspeople in the face and then said "Oh, don't blame us! It's the federal government's fault! You should be supporting us!"

I actually heard such a ridiculous claim on a TV clip. I am going by memory for the name of the native protester who said it, but I believe it was Janie Jamieson. Whoever doesn't really matter.

I personally held much support for the natives in that area, until I saw the WAY they protested! At that point I lost all respect for them. They chose the townsfolk as the target of their protest. If they had roared through McGuinty's backyard on ATVs I would have chipped in for the gas!

The townsfolk had been not just their neighbours but even family for centuries. The protesters treated them as cannon fodder. The government abandoned them, because after OKA no one will ever believe that native protesters would not have arms again. Much easier to push the non-natives around, who tend to grumble but still do what they are told.

So if you want to start a thread of your own about land claims then do so. THIS thread is not about that.

[boobowa]

Not again!

Listen! It's not about land claims! Those are a separate issue! It's about violence and a double standard in applying the law!

The natives could get 100% of what they claim in Caledonia and it will still be irrelevant to the townsfolk. Their issue is what THEY endured!

It's like the natives punched townspeople in the face and then said "Oh, don't blame us! It's the federal government's fault! You should be supporting us!"

I actually heard such a ridiculous claim on a TV clip. I am going by memory for the name of the native protester who said it, but I believe it was Janie Jamieson. Whoever doesn't really matter.

I personally held much support for the natives in that area, until I saw the WAY they protested! At that point I lost all respect for them. They chose the townsfolk as the target of their protest. If they had roared through McGuinty's backyard on ATVs I would have chipped in for the gas!

The townsfolk had been not just their neighbours but even family for centuries. The protesters treated them as cannon fodder. The government abandoned them, because after OKA no one will ever believe that native protesters would not have arms again. Much easier to push the non-natives around, who tend to grumble but still do what they are told.

So if you want to start a thread of your own about land claims then do so. THIS thread is not about that.

What were the protesters protesting? Why were they being abusive to the neighbours they had shared for centuries, was a survey conducted about the paranoia - belief verses the validity of the holding of arms in this localised and over policed area? Where is the common sense in this thread? Nobody protests over nothing. The protests were about land issues from the past to the present.

[Wild Bill]

What were the protesters protesting? Why were they being abusive to the neighbours they had shared for centuries, was a survey conducted about the paranoia - belief verses the validity of the holding of arms in this localised and over policed area? Where is the common sense in this thread? Nobody protests over nothing. The protests were about land issues from the past to the present.

You just refuse to face the issue in question, don't you? All you see is the land claims. To you, the TACTICS of the native protesters are either irrelevant or "nice".

There is no point in talking to you. You deny reality. You don't have to convince anyone here. Try convincing the entire town of Caledonia.

Try convincing Sam Gualtieri, who was bashed in the head with a two by four and now has permanent extensive brain injury. It was NOT an isolated incident!

This has all been hashed over in several threads. It goes nowhere, mostly because of people like you who refuse to talk about HOW the natives protested!

Enough. I would rather watch paint dry. More productive.

[boobowa]

I think watching paint dry is all the initiative you could ever muster. YOU see a protest means that their is an issue being protested. That's it.It would and could not be labelled a protest otherwise - your point is nonsensical. Land was and still is the issue being fought hundreds of years to now of the SAME protest still being neglected. As for the chap that was beaten - senseless, It was a shame but I feel certain it was not for nothing. Further, think of the violence and the thousands upon thousands of lives you people stole as well as the lands inherent to Canada.You point out the victimization of one man. I point out the victimization of thousands of children = taken away and abused at residential schools to have their culture forceably removed in order for you to steal the lands. The last school closed in 1996. For many, this is not a long time ago. You hark on about recent events. Nothing is recent.

[jacee]

The people of Caledonia have been well compensated for any inconvenience.

The land they squat on, however, has never been paid for.