Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[Riverwind]

"Article 7 of the "United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples" (26 August 1994) defines "Cultural genocide" (emphasis added)[1]:

The UN declaration on the "rights of indigenous peoples" is not law nor does it have any credibility outside of the narrow community of professional activists that created it. Any definition of genocide contained within it is irrelevant to this dicussion about the meaning of the genocide provision in the criminal code of Canada.

If you want to insist on fabricating new definitions of the word 'genocide' then I will argue that you should be charged with genocide under Canadian law because you have openly advocated the expulsion of 1/2 million from their homes.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon! Riverspin,

The draft declaration cites a definition of cultural genocide that is accepted by those that support the declaration. That makes it globally accepted definition.

Later on in the document the stages of cultural genocide. You're in the last phase according to the article.

1. Classification People are divided into "us and them". "The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."

2. Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..." "To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden… as can hate speech".

3. Dehumanization "Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder." "Hate propaganda should be banned, hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished."

4. Organization "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..." "To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed."

5. Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..." "Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups..."

6. Identification "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..." "At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called..."

7. Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human." "At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection."

8. Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..." "The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts."

That doesn't surprise me coming from you as a party hack, since the Conservatives harbour a racist genocidal cadre hiding in their extreme right wing.....

You've lost another argument Riverspin. Move on.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

The draft declaration cites a definition of cultural genocide that is accepted by those that support the declaration. That makes it globally accepted definition.

It is not an accepted definition under the criminal code of Canada (the original discussion on this thread) nor its it an accepted definition to anyone other than the professional victims-r-us lobby that infests the UN.

Furthermore, even if we accept the abuse of the English language it is still a lie to say that native peoples in Canada were subjected to 'genocide' - you have to always use the term 'cultural genocide'. We have the same problem with the term sexual assault which is now meaningless because it can mean anything from unwanted touching to violant rape.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The UN definition is probably not an accepted definition in Rwanda either but the rest of us recognize genocide when we see it. Those who don't have something to hide, being complicit it the crime.

Genocide means cultural genocide too! The definition provided by the originator of the word clearly identifies the intended application of the word when it was coined.

You're grasping at straws. You lost this argument so move on.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...a-decision.html

Judge orders natives off construction site. Contempt of court order cited.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Judge Marshall has no legal authority to compel Six Nations people leave their land. His attempts to stop the negotiations is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion

( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

He cannot reasonably restrict the negotiations from occurring unless the parties represent a threat to the security of persons or the country. Ignoring his injunction and contempt order is not a crime since neither are valid anyway.

Seems the good judge is making this personal and attempting to inject his own form of racism into the fray. Too bad he doesn't have the legal authority to make his make-believe powers come true.

We'll just be ignoring him, as usual.

O:nen

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

The UN declaration on the "rights of indigenous peoples" is not law nor does it have any credibility outside of the narrow community of professional activists that created it.

Well, if it hasn't been said already, you could of been a great asset for the defence team at the Nuremburg trials given your perspective on genocide.

I suppose that you also have taken to referring to Native people in general as "terrorists" too.

Any definition of genocide contained within it is irrelevant to this dicussion about the meaning of the genocide provision in the criminal code of Canada.

Why yes....what better way of sweeping under the proverbial rug the fact that it was official federal policy (for decades) to remove Aboriginal children from their families and put them in a residential school, where they were taught to essentially hate themselves and their people in between rape sessions. Does this mean that Native folks should be thanking the government for the gift of impoverishment too?

If you want to insist on fabricating new definitions of the word 'genocide' then I will argue that you should be charged with genocide under Canadian law because you have openly advocated the expulsion of 1/2 million from their homes.

I can't speak for Tsi, but my understanding is that the U.N. definition of genocide was accepted by this country many years ago.

That being the case, are you changing history on us again, River?

[Temagami Scourge]

Tsi:

First off, let me give you a resounding Sago!

Secondly, I see that you, too, have found out that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, as evidenced by a number of posters on this site and their"beliefs" on Aboriginal people.

I'll admit that I have spent a great deal of time here previously trying to assist my neighbours in overcoming their profound ignorance respecting Aboriginal issues, but i'm at the point where one might think it a better idea to take these people away from their families to a distant location, and be given a proper education?

sound like a plan?

HAHAHA

[Riverwind]

I can't speak for Tsi, but my understanding is that the U.N. definition of genocide was accepted by this country many years ago.

The UN definition of genocide was accepted by the Canada years ago but that definition does not apply to anything that has happened to natives in this country.

What Tsi is trying to argue is this new concept called 'cultural genocide' is just as significant.

My argument is using the term genocide to describe cultural assimilation is a abuse of the term 'genocide'. It is an exercise in propaganda that no once will take seriously.

There is an interesting parallel to the use of the term sexual assault. Everyone would agree that a woman who had her breasts fondled on a bus was violated. However, it would be ridiculous for that woman to run around and claim she was raped.

Natives have a right to claim that the assimilationist policies in the past were wrong and violated their right to free expression - I also agree and support such a characterization. However, trying attach the label like genocide to what happened debases the meaning of the term and will eventually render it meaningless.

[NativeCharm]

I see Ol' Riv is trying to downplay (again) what has happened to our people.

What happened to the people that attended residential school (and convents) WAS GENOCIDE..accept it River. No, you are not repsonsible for it, so if thats why you wont admit it, then we free you from your guilt.

The intergenerational effects from the residential schools was ALSO supposed to be a part of the govt's genocidal plan on Native people's (make them kill themsleves, so we dont have to)..and if that doesnt work..we will round up all the women and sterilize them. Other parts of the plan included small pox, TB, and moving people to land that had no agricultural ability (swamps).

FACE THE FACTS already! DeNial IS NOT a river.

Yeah I agree, I think we should send Riv (along with some others) to go to school somewhere!

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

The UN definition of genocide was accepted by the Canada years ago but that definition does not apply to anything that has happened to natives in this country.

No...of course not! There are people, and then there are Natives...two totally different things, eh wot?

What Tsi is trying to argue is this new concept called 'cultural genocide' is just as significant.

Laddie...Cultural genocide is identified in the UN definition from ages ago. I think that you are upset not because cultural genocide is "new", but that someone, somewhere, read the definition and said "Hey...that is what the Canadian government did to native people here!", and acted on it. According to your terms, we would need black-and-white photos of emaciated Canadian natives in striped concentration camp uniforms before you would accept a claim of genocide.

My argument is using the term genocide to describe cultural assimilation is a abuse of the term 'genocide'. It is an exercise in propaganda that no once will take seriously.

Somehow, the idea of dragging children from their homes on reserve and sending them en masse to distant schools to be taught to not only hate themselves and their people, but how to become low-income workers -as a basis of official government policy- does not sound like "cultural assimilation", but more like "forced assimilation", or, say, genocide...would it not? To do this over a period of decades doesn't really assist your "assimilation" argument either.

However, I see assimilation as being a product of choice, not force. If Native folks were given the choice to join the greater society, then you'd win the argument hands down, but when the edict comes down from a distant capital as a law...then choice is no longer part of the equation, would you not say? In that case, the definition of genocide becomes pretty compelling, eh?

There is an interesting parallel to the use of the term sexual assault. Everyone would agree that a woman who had her breasts fondled on a bus was violated. However, it would be ridiculous for that woman to run around and claim she was raped.

I agree....much in the same way as someone trying to say that official federal law authorizing the seizure of children from a specific minority population to be "educated" in the majority's culture and language, without any ounce of input from the minority population, is really assimilation instead of genocide.

makes no sense....

Natives have a right to claim that the assimilationist policies in the past were wrong and violated their right to free expression - I also agree and support such a characterization.

That sounds lovely, but we still have an Indian Act on the books that many thousands of intelligent and educated Federally-elected public figures have done precious little to modify in the past 139 years, so the concept of "antiquation" makes little sense when there is still federal law in the here and now impacting the lives of Aboriginal people in this country.

i will give credit for the fact that the "Micmac Scalp Law" was removed from New Brunswick's books a couple of years ago, though. Congratulations.

However, trying attach the label like genocide to what happened debases the meaning of the term and will eventually render it meaningless.

I disagree. I tend to think it accurately describes Canadian Federal laws and policies respecting aboriginal people.

Hey...did you know Natives got the right to vote in 1950! That only took 85 years from the initial introduction of the Indian Act!

now that's progress....

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Riverspin is grasping at straws. The originator of the word "genocide" clearly intended that it would broadly include cultural, language or economic extermination in its meaning.

Under the residential School programs children were stolen from their parents - often at gunpoint - and shipped off to unknown places far away from their communities. Their parents were never told where they were sent. They were beaten, molested and abused for speaking their languages, practicing their culture or just for sounding and acting like an Indian. It is estimated that nearly 50% of the children sent away never returned - many being murdered by the priests and principals of the schools. Those who did come back were saddled with all kinds of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual dis-eases that lingered through the generations. Whole communties are now suffering as a result of those genocidal attacks on innocent children.

Saying that this is not genocide is purely moronic, given that there has been a clear indictment of the Churches and agencies that abused the children (yet the deaths remain unrequited). There have been admissions but not to the extent of the accusations. If the shoe were on the other foot and we swept in the middle of the night and kidnapped your children to an unknown location with the intent of beating the anglo out of them, there is no doubt for a second that you would be crying the same points, and making the same claims. But of course because it is the mainstream ill-thinking under attack, you would think it a different event.

Riverspin is lost in his own rhetoric. I've experienced this kind of government spin after obfuscation doesn't work they try to change the definition of the words. It is clearly a lost cause, since the word and its meaning is universal, from the beginning that the term "genocide" was coined.

O:nen

[yam]

It is no wonder that the meaning of the word has been "fogged up".

Once a genocide has been identified through intention and practise, then the offenders have to face legal prosecution. Even the activities in rwanda were denied as 'genocide' for a while by blanketting the issues.

Hence we have in Canada a perpetual denial driven by the educators of all people. It is as interesting as it is horrifying in view of its lethal but elusive descriptive and written character. I read the supplied definitions here and am not happy with them because the wording is not solid enough to ward off interpretation. Each description implies a lack of measurability that courts of law could use - the question of degrees. But i think this very factor serves a terrible purpose. In fact a refusal to clarify an unquestionable meaning makes prosecution of it impossible. Therefore it will serve to secure its further practice. And yes i do think f/ns have suffered and are suffering from genocide -

[scribblet]

[quote name=

Natives have a right to claim that the assimilationist policies in the past were wrong and violated their right to free expression - I also agree and support such a characterization. However, trying attach the label like genocide to what happened debases the meaning of the term and will eventually render it meaningless.

Again, you make the case. It is the same as the misuse of the the word racist, as far as I can tell a these days, a racist is someone who disagrees with a native point of view.

[Who's Doing What?]

Don't blame me it's from your Criminal Code. The agenda you wish and seek to impose on us consistent with deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

For those of you that may misinterpret the deffinition due to Who's Doing What?s comprehension disability it refers to destroying the way of life NOT life itself! If you read (2) (a) it refers to killing or taking of life!

It may be "my" Criminal code but you are completely misinterpreting it.

You are making a mockery of all the true victims of genocide, and I seriously hope it comes home to haunt you.

The genocide section of your Criminal Code comes from directly from the International Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II which states:

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 2 ( © and (e) does not mean you have to cause death! And clearly defines what constitutes genocide. Canada became a signatory on November, 28, 1949. You might also want to pay close attention to Article 3 as well!

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

( Conspiracy to commit genocide;

© Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

I know, I know...here it is! http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Go Talk to a Tutsi or a Hutu, about Genocide.

You are cheapening the tragedy of their deaths, with your lame comparison.

NOPE.

(im non-native by the way)

Naturally, academics have made distinctions between the forms of genocide - obviously academics from Rwanda.

In your cushioned opinion, you can call a particular form of genocide "cheap". But what we are speaking of is genocide and intentions, excuses for doing it - not weighing up the methods of genocide . . .

Rather, the people of rwanda would be the first to identify the subtleties of North American first world genocidal practices. A form of genocide which has been practiced all over the world. Rwanda used the "cheap" quick fix mechanism - of genocide and were well aware of the difference needless to say.

So free health care, tax free land and commmodities, education, assistance programs, and freedoms other Canadians are not afforded, is Genocide???????

Yam you are off your rocker.

[Who's Doing What?]

The only real racists on this site, are those suggesting they are owed something simply because they are of a particular race.

[Okwaho]

The only real racists on this site, are those suggesting they are owed something simply because they are of a particular race.

Here we go giving deffinitions to that nasty "R" word again! I get warned for calling people imbiciles and you can still get away with calling us racists!

We tell the truth, back it up repeatedly and we're still called racists.

I've told you twice already about your Queen's debt. If you have an issue with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow. Personally I don't think I'll be doing it. After researching it I find the following:

a) If I am not one of the majority my voice will never be heard!

If I am one of the majority my voice will never be heard!

c) If I own a big business I can have the loudest voice of all!

d) If I am not an at least an upper-middle class citizen I'll never be an MP much less Prime Minister!

e) If I am middle or lower class citizen I must carry the burden of taxes while the upper-middle and upper classes that can afford it get all the tax breaks!

f) The wealthier I am the more justice will be on my side!

g) Equality means that I can only have equal opportunity because as I can see from the items above I'll never be equal!

Nope...I think I'll stay within the Rotinonshonni!!! Thanks anyway!

[Riverwind]

with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow. Personally I don't think I'll be doing it.

Is this the answer to my question? Are you admitting that you want to live in a state where only people of a certain generic heritage are allowed to have a say in gov't?

[Okwaho]

with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow. Personally I don't think I'll be doing it.

Is this the answer to my question? Are you admitting that you want to live in a state where only people of a certain generic heritage are allowed to have a say in gov't?

Is this a comprehension impairment or another attempt to spin?

Here is your question

The only real racists on this site, are those suggesting they are owed something simply because they are of a particular race.

This is my answer to it

I've told you twice already about your Queen's debt. If you have an issue with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow.

The rest was my opinion of the wonderful "democracy" that you boast to be "equal." I'm merely pointing out the fact that it isn't even fair to all Canadians. It is full of equality flaws.

[Okwaho]

I forgot to mention...you came real close to using the "R" word again!

[Riverwind]

Here is your question

No this is my question:

Ditto on that one! That's exactly what you're saying to us only in your view. The difference is your the one that keeps using the word "racist" and stretching the definition of the word to encompass your nonsense.

What other word would describe a person that insists that 500,000 people should be either evicted from their homes or forced to submit to gov't that taxes them but does not allow them the vote? I know you made the claim that anyone can become a citizen of Six Nations but we both know that citizenship rules can be manipulated to ensure that very few of those 500,000 people ever get the vote. Claiming that they could vote in theory means nothing - just the like the fact that people in the former USSR could vote in theory but in practice they had no rights.

If you really believe in democratic rights for everyone regardless of ethnic background then you should make it clear that you would be perfectly happy to live in a Six Nations state where all of the economic decisions were made by the non-native majority. If you are not willing to make a statement like that then it is reasonable to conclude that you don't believe that everyone should have a right to vote.

So it appears you are saying that those 500,000 people should not have any rights in a Six Nations state because "democracy is flawed" and the Six Nations people (or at least you and your immediate circle of friends) do not believe in it.

[NativeCharm]

Yep, he's spinning again.

[Okwaho]

Here is your question

No this is my question:

Ditto on that one! That's exactly what you're saying to us only in your view. The difference is your the one that keeps using the word "racist" and stretching the definition of the word to encompass your nonsense.

What other word would describe a person that insists that 500,000 people should be either evicted from their homes or forced to submit to gov't that taxes them but does not allow them the vote? I know you made the claim that anyone can become a citizen of Six Nations but we both know that citizenship rules can be manipulated to ensure that very few of those 500,000 people ever get the vote. Claiming that they could vote in theory means nothing - just the like the fact that people in the former USSR could vote in theory but in practice they had no rights.

If you really believe in democratic rights for everyone regardless of ethnic background then you should make it clear that you would be perfectly happy to live in a Six Nations state where all of the economic decisions were made by the non-native majority. If you are not willing to make a statement like that then it is reasonable to conclude that you don't believe that everyone should have a right to vote.

So it appears you are saying that those 500,000 people should not have any rights in a Six Nations state because "democracy is flawed" and the Six Nations people (or at least you and your immediate circle of friends) do not believe in it.

Can you please be a little more coherent or maybe more direct at what you are trying to get at? I'm under the impression that you're trying to use the "R" word again because you're trying to take the focus off of your democracy flaws.

[Riverwind]

Can you please be a little more coherent or maybe more direct at what you are trying to get at? I'm under the impression that you're trying to use the "R" word again because you're trying to take the focus off of your democracy flaws.

Let's assume the gov't turns the entire Haldimand Tract to Six Nations. If that happened there would be 500,000 people living in the land who are not currently citizens of Six Nations. People who believe in democratic principals would immediately extend the right to vote to these people so they would be able to participate in the decisions about what to do with their tax money. However, I suspect that you and other Six Nations people would rather force these people to leave than grant them citizenship because you know that if they had the right to vote then existing Six Nations people would be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. Unfortunately, trying to either force non-aboriginals off the land or using various forms of trickery to deny them the right to vote for no reason other than the fact that they are not of the same ethic background is racism by anyone's definition. In fact, mass expulsions would come close to one of the definitions of genocide that you love to throw around.

I realize I am making a big assumption here and I am giving you the opportunity to state clearly that you oppose racism in any form and that you would support the immediate granting of Six Nations citizenship to all non-aboriginals living in the Haldimand Tract even if that means that the existing aboriginal population would end up with very little say in how Six Nations is run. If you are not willing to make such a statement then it is reasonable to conclude that you believe that racism is justified in certain circumstances.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Until the settlers can pass the requirements for citizenship in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, they will not be allowed to vote or be elevated to any political position. It is a simple concept that even Canada engages in in dealing with immigrants.

However, once they do meet the requirements it would still not be a problem. There are approximately 1.5 million Confederacy Haudenosaunee represented by 50 Royaner in the Grand Council, so it is unlikely that 200,000 or so that might be elegible to participate, could sway the common opinion on any matter. And since ours is a concentual government, a majority vote is irrelevent. Minds are changed and challenged through the art of pursuasion and it is unlikely that coming from a backward and undemocratic political system like Canada's that most of them would be capable of aquiring that skill quickly. Even as participants at the community level (which would be granted right away) it is highly unlikely that they could alter the current course given that those elevated to the position of Royaner must demonstrate their understanding of the prinicples of the Kayenera'kowa AND should they fail the interest of the Confederacy they could be impeached in a moment's notice.

So you see, there are no voting rights to obtain. In order to participate they must hold a good mind. We do know that at least those like Riverspin that have been overly vocal don't possess that characteristic (and in particular good listening skills) so by their own inadequacies they would be incapable of particpating in real democracy.

O:nen