Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[betsy]

Betsy, the minute I can spot a racist Caledonian from a non-racist one is the minute I stop. I can't tell who is and who isn't racist in the same way that I can't tell who a virgin is and isn't by sight. But I was surprised by the number of people who thought nothing of using racist terms to express their anger.

"But I was surprised by the number of people who thought nothing of using racist terms to express their ANGER."

Why are they angry?

[betsy]

yes...but at least with apples, you can see and smell the bad ones, thus avoiding or ignoring them. The same doesn't hold true for people, unless they are wearing something that clearly identifies their racist views.

But if you can't tell one from the other, how do you know?

I have the impression that there's business interaction between the Natives and Caledonia, like neighbors.

I assume you'd seen the angry reactions of some Caledonians you knew...and were in good terms with, or whom you'd never thought would spout racist remarks, prior to this protest. So you feel bewildered why they did not understand your grievances. And you feel betrayed because they did not support your cause.

They turned against you, instead.

The protest was illegal. They have nothing to do with your problems. And it was disrupting their lives.

I bet some of these folks are bewildered why the natives did not understand it from their perspective: they don't have anything to do with the problem.

And they probably felt betrayed....never had a hint that they'd be in the news, be used in a political game and become another Oka.

Some are probably thinking along the same lines like you: "Dammit Myrtle, at least with apples, you can see and smell the bad ones, thus avoiding or ignoring them. The same doesn't hold true for people!"

[Temagami Scourge]

Betsy:

There is nothing wrong with Caledonians starting a counter blockade or being angry about Native protestors, but there is no reason to start using racial epithets to express their anger, or to resort to violence, both of which the Caledonians began early in the protest.

Old white people attacked? sure, but why aren't you complaining about native Elders getting pepper-sprayed -which was caught on video- by the OPP...especially when the elder was just standing there, not threatening anyone. That act alone precipitated a response from the younger people, like hitting the police van with a bat, but no one went after the Caledonians, just the OPP.

The only shooting was by some Caledonian who used a high-powered pellet gun to rip open the cheek of a protestor peacefully standing behind a barricade. Even then, the Chiefs asked the protestors to not retaliate, but to just build higher cover in case more people start shooting.

Fights? mainstream media never reported on the ex-Chief's husband, who took his granddaughter out for ice cream near Hagersville, only to be accosted by five young Caledonians, who likely found the grandfather an easy mark because he was just with a little girl. No police responded, but then again, they don't anyway.

Why would the police barricades face the Caledonians? I know this made the Caledonians upset, but they were the ones trying to provoke the native protestors, they were the ones shooting fireworks at the Native protestors, they were the ones rushing the barricades, and they were the ones screaming obcenities and racial epithets at the protestors.

The bottom line is that none of this was supposed to happen because Douglas Creek was supposed to be off the table back when Six Nations agreed to halt litigation and switch to negotiations. The Feds promised that outstanding claims would be held in limbo until a decision is made...and then what happened? The province sold land the Feds told the Confederacy would be on hold.

Secondly, the Feds are well aware of all the "sales" made on the land...they are aware of both the 1838 lease and 1841 sale because Six Nations entered this as evidence back in the 1980's during the court case. So tell me, if they knew about these things and still sought to remove the claim from the court process, how can the Crown turn around and publically state the land was sold? Why not just keep it in court if they were so certain?

The easy answer is that Six Nations accumulated enough evidence and a paper trail to highlight the myriad discrepancies in many of the "sales". Sales took place without the 2nd party paying up. Leases were made with no money coming to the band. A ton of Six Nation's money from land sales was taken and invested in the Welland Canal with no return, and yet the canal still exists and is quite successful. Taken together, the Crown representatives have obviously stiffed the Six Nations, which leaves the Crown open to some serious problems...unless they got out of litigation and decided to negotiate.

Remember, this "inconvenience" has gone on at Six Nations since the early 1800's -at least 150 years or more, with no end in sight, whereas the Caledonians were slightly discomforted by having one road out of town blocked, and yet they start seeing compensation within a hundred days.

if that doesn't give you an idea of the "equality" rampant in this country, then I don't know what does. But if you want to continue to defend violent racists when you haven't actually seen what is occuring with your own eyes, then feel free to do so.

that too, is the Canadian way.

[betsy]

Betsy:

There is nothing wrong with Caledonians starting a counter blockade or being angry about Native protestors,

But why are they angry?

[betsy]

Betsy:

There is nothing wrong with Caledonians starting a counter blockade or being angry about Native protestors, but there is no reason to start using racial epithets to express their anger, or to resort to violence, both of which the Caledonians began early in the protest.

Wouldn't this same kind of reasoning work the other way around?

There is nothing wrong with Natives starting a protest or being angry, BUT there is no reason to start using Caledonia and its residents as a political pawn, disrupting lives and normalcy in the process (for something they have no control nor anything to do with), just to express their anger at the government.

[betsy]

Secondly, the Feds are well aware of all the "sales" made on the land...they are aware of both the 1838 lease and 1841 sale because Six Nations entered this as evidence back in the 1980's during the court case. So tell me, if they knew about these things and still sought to remove the claim from the court process, how can the Crown turn around and publically state the land was sold? Why not just keep it in court if they were so certain?

Caledonia and its residents have nothing to do with your land disputes.

[betsy]

The easy answer is that Six Nations accumulated enough evidence and a paper trail to highlight the myriad discrepancies in many of the "sales". Sales took place without the 2nd party paying up. Leases were made with no money coming to the band. A ton of Six Nation's money from land sales was taken and invested in the Welland Canal with no return, and yet the canal still exists and is quite successful. Taken together, the Crown representatives have obviously stiffed the Six Nations, which leaves the Crown open to some serious problems...unless they got out of litigation and decided to negotiate.

Again, it's the same answer. Caledonia and its residents has nothing to do with your land disputes.

[Temagami Scourge]

Betsy:

There is nothing wrong with Caledonians starting a counter blockade or being angry about Native protestors,

But why are they angry?

On the barricades, they are angry that Natives "get" so much free stuff, are life-long welfare bums, and are alcoholics, drug-abusers and general filth.

When they get in front of a T.V. camera or a newspaper reporter, they say they are angry because their lives are disrupted, that they feel threatened by Natives, and that Natives are terrorists, and that Natives get so much free stuff.

All I know is that they seem angry for one thing to the Natives faces, and angry for something else for the cameras.

[Temagami Scourge]

Secondly, the Feds are well aware of all the "sales" made on the land...they are aware of both the 1838 lease and 1841 sale because Six Nations entered this as evidence back in the 1980's during the court case. So tell me, if they knew about these things and still sought to remove the claim from the court process, how can the Crown turn around and publically state the land was sold? Why not just keep it in court if they were so certain?

Caledonia and its residents have nothing to do with your land disputes.

You tell them that, then. Lord knows we've repeated it often enough at the barricades, but the Caledonians are taking it on themselves and blaming the Natives, not the government.

Fortunately, some Caucasian people are seeing the Crown as the real culprit, but the drunks and racists are seeing the Natives as the culprit.

[betsy]

Remember, this "inconvenience" has gone on at Six Nations since the early 1800's -at least 150 years or more, with no end in sight, whereas the Caledonians were slightly discomforted by having one road out of town blocked, and yet they start seeing compensation within a hundred days.

The "inconveniences" suffered by the Natives were not caused by the Caledonians.

Degrees of suffering by someone is not for anyone to decide. What you may see only as a slight discomfort could be more than that for somebody else.

The point is: Your protest was illegal. That clearly put you in the wrong, whether your grievance is legitimate or not.

Until the matter is settled by whoever is deemed with legal authority to settle such matters....I believe the law should be followed. And no one is above the law.

You have the right to be heard. You have the right to voice out your grievance. What you don't have is the right to disrupt innocent people's lives with an illegal protest.

Whatever the reason behind this protest...it inevitably goes right back full circle.

The facts remain the same:

The protest was unlawful. The Caledonians were used as a political hostage. Violence ensued as a result.

[Temagami Scourge]

The easy answer is that Six Nations accumulated enough evidence and a paper trail to highlight the myriad discrepancies in many of the "sales". Sales took place without the 2nd party paying up. Leases were made with no money coming to the band. A ton of Six Nation's money from land sales was taken and invested in the Welland Canal with no return, and yet the canal still exists and is quite successful. Taken together, the Crown representatives have obviously stiffed the Six Nations, which leaves the Crown open to some serious problems...unless they got out of litigation and decided to negotiate.

Again, it's the same answer. Caledonia and its residents has nothing to do with your land disputes.

The residents don't, but the land Caledonia resides on is clearly marked as confederacy land in the Haldimand tract, so you are incorrect on that point.

However, you are still defending violent racists, which does concern me. That is the same attitude everyday Germans had when Jews started disappearing off the streets in the 1930's. People found it easy to blame the jews for their "jewishness", and would agree whenever the Nazi government blamed the jews for the "criminality" of being Jewish.

You seem to think of natives in the same way as the 1930's Germans thought of their Jewish population. they were called "terrorists" and "criminals" too, the same way you've described Confederacy people and their actions.

That's where my concern lies. I don't want to see history repeated.

[Temagami Scourge]

Betsy:

The "inconveniences" suffered by the Natives were not caused by the Caledonians.

But the Caledonians voted for the succession of governments that created the inconveniences. Still, they aren't the target, but the Crown is.

Degrees of suffering by someone is not for anyone to decide. What you may see only as a slight discomfort could be more than that for somebody else.

I don't know, but seeing as how both Caledonian business owners and residents are sitting back and counting the money the province rushed to them for their "inconvenience" in the past hundred days, while the reclamation remains unresolved certainly tells me who the government's priority is.

The point is: Your protest was illegal. That clearly put you in the wrong, whether your grievance is legitimate or not.

no, the point is that the land sale was illegal, and the crown was doing nothing to rectify that situation other than sell the land to private interests. Anything afterwards was escalation.

Until the matter is settled by whoever is deemed with legal authority to settle such matters....I believe the law should be followed. And no one is above the law.

Whose law? Canadian or the Confederacy's? So far, Canadian law allows people like Homolka to walk around freely after committing a heinous murder, and let's people out on early parole to kill again...and you expect everyone to follow that law?

I suggest you find a better law to base your argument on.

You have the right to be heard. You have the right to voice out your grievance. What you don't have is the right to disrupt innocent people's lives with an illegal protest.

How would you go about stopping the building of a sub-division. The Natives were smart enough to stop it before anyone moved in, thus there was a limit as to disruption. Secondly, there are many a Caledonian who turns up thier eyebrow when they hear one of their neighbours say they are "inconvenienced". Many Caledonians work in Hamilton and Toronto, where the jobs are. None of those routes were blocked.

The protest was unlawful. The Caledonians were used as a political hostage. Violence ensued as a result

Actually, the Caledonians themselves are the ones crying out that they are hostages. The Natives wanted to leave them well enough alone, but the business interests in town goaded some Caledonians into provoking the natives.

The funny thing is that you aren't familiar enough with the town and who runs it to know the personalities involved, but you are clearly basing your opinion onwhat the mainstream media feeds you.

I understand. this country works better on misinformation and innuendo. truth just gets in people's way...

[betsy]

The residents don't, but the land Caledonia resides on is clearly marked as confederacy land in the Haldimand tract, so you are incorrect on that point.

There is a legal dispute.

Natives say one thing whereas the government claims another. The legitimacy of your claim is in question. You can't even issue any eviction notice based on on that.

I don't know much about the law to say that that is the reason why yourprotest is deemed illegal and that it was ordered by a judge that you be removed from the site....but obviously, that is the reason why the natives are in the wrong.

[betsy]

However, you are still defending violent racists, which does concern me. That is the same attitude everyday Germans had when Jews started disappearing off the streets in the 1930's. People found it easy to blame the jews for their "jewishness", and would agree whenever the Nazi government blamed the jews for the "criminality" of being Jewish.

You seem to think of natives in the same way as the 1930's Germans thought of their Jewish population. they were called "terrorists" and "criminals" too, the same way you've described Confederacy people and their actions.

That's where my concern lies. I don't want to see history repeated.

I've been accused of being melo-dramatic at one point on this thread, but now that' you've joined me.....this will indeed become a never-ending, twisting-and-turning debate. Just like soap. So now you're associating yourselves with the Jews circa 1930.

I didn't know Jews were allowed to do illegal protest during that time.

I thought the only time they're allowed to gather together was when they're about to be sent to camps....or to be executed.

I thought they can't even say boo! Let alone take over properties and make any demands. As a matter of fact, nazis and sympathizers can get right inside those Ghettos (which you likened to the Reserves I presume) and yank just about any Jews and plug a bullet in his head for no reason at all. ...in full view of everyone.

Do ghettos have any formal self-governments that was allowed?

Then what about simple rights of any individual? Did the Jews enjoy any of those rights?

I understand you are trying to legitimize and justify this protest....but I don't think equating yourselves with the Jews during that time is even appropriate....nor politically correct. This attempt only made it look like you're desperately grasping for straws.

But the Jews may not find this amusing at all.

They may resent the way you try to trivialized the most diabolical atrocity of that time.

[betsy]

However, you are still defending violent racists, which does concern me.

It's beginning to concern me too.

Reading the news does not give quite an insightful look about the matter.

To tell you frankly, now that I've read several threads on this forum from various related threads....especially from this particular thread....it made me realize without any doubt that if there is any REAL racism at all, it clearly comes from both sides of the fence.

Being objective about it, how can I not think otherwise?

[betsy]

However, you are still defending violent racists, which does concern me.

No. I am defending rights and freedom. And what the country stands for.

You asked me, "is this the Canada you want?"

It definitely is not, IF just about anyone can use unlawfull and unjust means to make any demands.

Not if it's mob rules. Not if lawlessness becomes the norm.

[betsy]

Until the matter is settled by whoever is deemed with legal authority to settle such matters....I believe the law should be followed. And no one is above the law.

Whose law? Canadian or the Confederacy's? So far, Canadian law allows people like Homolka to walk around freely after committing a heinous murder, and let's people out on early parole to kill again...and you expect everyone to follow that law?

That's why it's justifiable to break the law?

[betsy]

Secondly, there are many a Caledonian who turns up thier eyebrow when they hear one of their neighbours say they are "inconvenienced".

Actually, the Caledonians themselves are the ones crying out that they are hostages.

The funny thing is that you aren't familiar enough with the town and who runs it to know the personalities involved, but you are clearly basing your opinion onwhat the mainstream media feeds you.

I understand. this country works better on misinformation and innuendo. truth just gets in people's way...

There's this contradiction between the first and second statement.

If I don't base my opinion through the mainstream media (which clearly shows more objectivity and reliable info)...whom should I based it with?

Turtle News Press Release?

Yours?

[Temagami Scourge]

There's this contradiction between the first and second statement.

no kidding...that's why I have a good laugh when I listen to Caledonians who get in front of a camera...they say "our kids are scared", and then you see their kids happily playing by the blockade. Why would these children be playing by the blockade if they are crying in fear of the warriors at night?

If I don't base my opinion through the mainstream media (which clearly shows more objectivity and reliable info)

It does!? They didn't report the shooting of a reclaimant a month ago? They never said that the old German that stopped his car and was followed to Canadian tire had pulled over and was screaming racist terms and provoking the Natives eh? Personally, Turtle Island and the Tekawannake are the two magazines that bother to take both sides of the story. Even CKRZ takes calls from racist Caledonians during the talk shows. I don't see any of the Toronto or Hamilton stations doing that. They ytake their 15 to 30 second sound bite and go from there.

...or you can listen to me because I know what I'm talking about and tell the truth( which I know seems to annot many here).

Besides, you are still defending violent racists and their tactics. Don't try to hide that fact.

Oh....guess what! word is starting to filter out that Justice Marshall owns property within the Haldimand tract! Now I know why he wanted to order the protestors out, and to get the Crown involved so quickly! He has a personal stake in what is going on! gotta love our justice system!

Wow...you gotta love that Canadian law (and good ol' Iroquois media fact finding!

[betsy]

Besides, you are still defending violent racists and their tactics. Don't try to hide that fact.

If I go along with you, I can be accused of "defending violent racists and their tactics." Some spew of racist slurs had been displayed on this forum from some native factions, which most probably...and with great possibility...only mirrors what was happening in the blockade scenario.

Since your protest is illegal, I can also be accused of abetting unlawfulness on top of that.

And since the legal adviser of the native chieftains had stated that the violent methods of these handful of Natives from within were in violation of the wishes of the chieftains, I can not say then that I am siding with the Native People....but more so siding with the radicals responsible for hijacking the peaceful intentions of the leaders, and therefore, I can be accused of dishonoring and dis-respecting the true representatives of the Native Nation (the chieftains).

If we were in a ship, heck I'd be charged with abetting mutiny!

[Temagami Scourge]

Besides, you are still defending violent racists and their tactics. Don't try to hide that fact.

If I go along with you, I can be accused of "defending violent racists and their tactics." Some spew of racist slurs had been displayed on this forum from some native factions, which most probably...and with great possibility...only mirrors what was happening in the blockade scenario.

Since your protest is illegal, I can also be accused of abetting unlawfulness on top of that.

And since the legal adviser of the native chieftains had stated that the violent methods of these handful of Natives from within were in violation of the wishes of the chieftains, I can not say then that I am siding with the Native People....but more so siding with the radicals responsible for hijacking the peaceful intentions of the leaders, and therefore, I can be accused of dishonoring and dis-respecting the true representatives of the Native Nation (the chieftains).

If we were in a ship, heck I'd be charged with abetting mutiny!

Ok Betsy...if the Natives are so radical, then why have things been quiet for the past while? Wouldn't these natives who've "hijacked" the process have created a disturbance by now...or has the Confederacy taken care of business and sent the hot heads out...something that caledonia has failed to do (Seeing as how the drunken, rock-throwing racists gather nightly to drink and throw rocks and racial epithets at the Natives.)

It's good to see you make innumerable assumptions, again.

Yes, I'll also agree that Natives have hurled verbal abuse back, but I don't see how someone yelling "You f***ing asshole" is racist when the Caledonians are screaming "wagon burners" at the reclaimants.

[Temagami Scourge]

Besides Betsy, don't you find that having a Judge with an interest in disputed property ruling on that same property to be a bit "Third-worldish". I've often seen Canadians scream blue murder when some African or Asian country makes a stacked court ruling, but here, you call it "justice". My next thought is that I wonder just how illegal the protest is if the judge who determined its "illegality" also happens to invest in land on the same tract impacting Douglas Creek. wouldn't it be smart on his part to a create precedent of illegality to protect his interests?

wow...so many questions...

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Ive heard this particular judge owns property in haldimand county as well as cottage further north - both within 6 miles of the Grand River. In any other case this would be called a conflict of interest. When are they going to appoint a neutral judiciary to deal with the ever increasing number of land claims? preferrably from an international court.

About 20 specific claims are settled each year - compared to 55 new cases filed annually, Stewart says.

Backlog of unsolved land claims nears 800 as minister plans overhaul

Temagami said " My next thought is that I wonder just how illegal the protest is if the judge who determined its "illegality" also happens to invest in land on the same tract impacting Douglas Creek. wouldn't it be smart on his part to a create precedent of illegality to protect his interests?"

The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid?

Betsy said " Natives say one thing whereas the government claims another. The legitimacy of your claim is in question. "

As you can clearly read from the article I linked to above, the land claims are legitimate. The problem is the time frame involved in solving the disputes. The government has acknowledged the claims, and is taking steps to expediate the settlements.

The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid?

Let me put it another way - Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???

[betsy]

The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid?

Let me put it another way - Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???

When did it get recognised by the government that they have a legitimate claim? I assume you meant "the government or the law" by "they". You got a link? At least it's informative if true....

If the law had recognised that the natives have a legitimate claim, then the law had revoked the order?

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Link to previous post

Actually Riv-ahhh - They have been recliamed - they are being held " in trust " by the provincial government.

I beleive the reason for this is to avoid complicating the issue further than it already is. Instead of seperate agreements, the lands will stay in limbo until such time as a solution is negotiated and a single document can de drafted.

Granted, given the way our federal governemt has handled land claims, this may take some time as they are prone to dragging their heels. But hopefully the provincial governeent will be able to move swiftly, so i will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Land Talks Resume

Meanwhile, a group representing Caledonia residents living around the disputed land, says it would like a more responsible role in the negotiations.

The Caledonia Citizens Alliance has been assured it will have a side table at the talks when Douglas Creek is discussed.

That quote is funny. How many people get to give their opinion in a negotiation which doesnt directly afftct them. Let alone sit in on them! Their names are not mentioned anywhere in regards to ownership or sale of the land. Im wondering who exactly is pulling their strings because outwardly they dont seem to be profiting from backing the Henco Bros. Remember way back when the bypass was blocked and all they said they wanted was the road open? Well they got what they wanted.....