Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Look at the map and try again. The Haldimand track runs on six miles of the Grand River from its mouth at Lake Erie to its source up near Shelburne. The US is unwilling to go back on the Jay Treaty and they affirm its validity every so often. In July on Border Crossing Day every year we cross the border enmasse to test our freedom to move unimpeded across the border.

You're really getting a bit punchy. Canada can't even resolve a lumber dispute with the US because the US has no use for Canadians or their complaints. What makes you think that your dispute with us would lead to a trade dispute with them? Give your head a shake!

O:nen

[Riverwind]

Look at the map and try again. The Haldimand track runs on six miles of the Grand River from its mouth at Lake Erie to its source up near Shelburne. The US is unwilling to go back on the Jay Treaty and they affirm its validity every so often. In July on Border Crossing Day every year we cross the border enmasse to test our freedom to move unimpeded across the border.

Look at the map again. The Grand River tract is in the possession of Canada today and there is no way Six Nations is going to get it all back. The only territory that Six Nations has any sort of control over is the existing reserve lands which are completely land locked. You could try to use violance to sieze control of lands that give you access to Lake Erie but you would be starting a war that you could not win.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Advocating violence Riverwind is something I expected from you. If you can't win a disagreement beat them up and then take it. After all that is the Canadian way - full of violence and hypocrisy.

Oka ratio: 1 warrior for every 100 Canadian troops. If you think your misfit pimply-faced armed forces can do anything but fill body bags, then I have a piece of land I would like to sell you in the Grand Valley......

We have the means to make our way anywhere in the world without your feeble atttempts to threaten us. You forget the woods and the darkness belong to us. Just as the Americans who died at Lundy's Lane who was more fearce, the British or us......

O:nen

[Okwaho]

She:kon!

Advocating violence Riverwind is something I expected from you. If you can't win a disagreement beat them up and then take it. After all that is the Canadian way - full of violence and hypocrisy.

Oka ratio: 1 warrior for every 100 Canadian troops. If you think your misfit pimply-faced armed forces can do anything but fill body bags, then I have a piece of land I would like to sell you in the Grand Valley......

We have the means to make our way anywhere in the world without your feeble atttempts to threaten us. You forget the woods and the darkness belong to us. Just as the Americans who died at Lundy's Lane who was more fearce, the British or us......

O:nen

Not to mention Queenston hieghts and the fact that the U.S. Special Forces wear and arrow head on their sleave to commemorate the Native style of warfare they practise!

[Who's Doing What?]

Our Threats?

You're the one saying you will starve us out of our homes.

[Riverwind]

Advocating violence Riverwind is something I expected from you. If you can't win a disagreement beat them up and then take it. After all that is the Canadian way - full of violence and hypocrisy.

I never advocated violence at all. In fact, I suggested that Canada use a non-violent trade blockade. You are the one who insisted that Canada could not enforce such a blockade because Six Nations has access to Lake Erie. I simply pointed out that Six Nations is a land locked reserve and that the only way Six Nations could get access to the water is if it used violence to occupy terroritory that currently belongs to Canada.

As I said before, Canada has no need to use any violence in the Six Nations dispute since Canada has all of the legal an economic advantages. That said, many people in Canada would like to see a negotiated settlement but that settlement is not going include the return of most of the Grand River lands. Accept that principal and you would likely find that the gov't is willing to be quite generous in its offers.

[ponyboy]

Advocating violence Riverwind is something I expected from you. If you can't win a disagreement beat them up and then take it. After all that is the Canadian way - full of violence and hypocrisy.

I never advocated violence at all. In fact, I suggested that Canada use a non-violent trade blockade. You are the one who insisted that Canada could not enforce such a blockade because Six Nations has access to Lake Erie. I simply pointed out that Six Nations is a land locked reserve and that the only way Six Nations could get access to the water is if it used violence to occupy terroritory that currently belongs to Canada.

As I said before, Canada has no need to use any violence in the Six Nations dispute since Canada has all of the legal an economic advantages. That said, many people in Canada would like to see a negotiated settlement but that settlement is not going include the return of most of the Grand River lands. Accept that principal and you would likely find that the gov't is willing to be quite generous in its offers.

Gee Riverwind,your posts sure blow the theory that we need more women in politics because they are kinder and gentler.As for non-violent trade block-ades how are you gonna enforce that with all us white friends of Six Nations running around?As at Oka,Ipperwash, and now Cali the only violence came from the white side.Are you related to Bushes friend stevie?

[Riverwind]

Gee Riverwind,your posts sure blow the theory that we need more women in politics because they are kinder and gentler.As for non-violent trade block-ades how are you gonna enforce that with all us white friends of Six Nations running around?As at Oka,Ipperwash, and now Cali the only violence came from the white side.Are you related to Bushes friend stevie?

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory - that is the law. If Six Nations respects the law then they will have to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement. If Six Nations chooses to violate Canada's territorial rights by smuggling goods then Six Nations is the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do: respect the law and negotiate a free trade agreement or use violance to take what they have no right to?

[Who's Doing What?]

Advocating violence Riverwind is something I expected from you. If you can't win a disagreement beat them up and then take it. After all that is the Canadian way - full of violence and hypocrisy.

I never advocated violence at all. In fact, I suggested that Canada use a non-violent trade blockade. You are the one who insisted that Canada could not enforce such a blockade because Six Nations has access to Lake Erie. I simply pointed out that Six Nations is a land locked reserve and that the only way Six Nations could get access to the water is if it used violence to occupy terroritory that currently belongs to Canada.

As I said before, Canada has no need to use any violence in the Six Nations dispute since Canada has all of the legal an economic advantages. That said, many people in Canada would like to see a negotiated settlement but that settlement is not going include the return of most of the Grand River lands. Accept that principal and you would likely find that the gov't is willing to be quite generous in its offers.

Gee Riverwind,your posts sure blow the theory that we need more women in politics because they are kinder and gentler.As for non-violent trade block-ades how are you gonna enforce that with all us white friends of Six Nations running around?As at Oka,Ipperwash, and now Cali the only violence came from the white side.Are you related to Bushes friend stevie?

How many "white" friends do you think there will still be when they realize that their land and home is going to be taken away from them aswell?

Which leads me to you. "Us white friends". So you are fighting to evict your own family, extended or not, from their homes? What are you thinking?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Again by right of the Royal Proclamation Canada has no land base. They have treaty interests but they do not physically own the land nor is it part of Canada. A Crown Corporation cannot own land. It can manage it but it can never own it, nor control it. By treaty with the Crown the Haldimand tract is not "shared lands". Its title is 100% Six Nations. So far neither the Crown, nor Canada has proven there were any land transfers that are legally binding, so the 6 miles on either side of the Grand River from its mouth to it source title is still ours.

Settlers have moved onto our territories some with the blessing of the Indian agent, some with the approval of Joseph Brant and most others as squatters. This occupation is illegal and it has been noted as earlier as 1810 that the squatting was a problem for us. Since your government has done nothing about, given ample opportunity to correct it by locating familys and small communities, the problems is theirs. If they refuse to do anything about after this next round of talks then we will look to other measures to clear a path to Erie and Shelburne. There isn't a thing that anyone can do to us except visit violence upon us. And while a rattlesnake may be harmless when left to silther away in the field, it you corner it and attempt to block its way, it will strike with venomous accuracy. And once the poison is inject you will be a long time recovering.

Not only do we have many non-native friends and advocate in Canada and the US but we have a contingent of other first nations that will come to our aid. Our network of trade and commerce established 2000 years ago still winds its way acroos the continent and I doubt there is anything you do that will interfere with that. As well you should always keep in mind that upwards of 90% of First nation people live in your cities and towns and you would not recognize the majority by physical characteristics. They are watching everybit as much as advocates and human rights watchers are , noting how inept Canada is towards aboriginals and how ignorant the majority of Canadians are about our history, culture, politics and present treatment by the government.

Riverwind you might consider, that the haldimand tract has already been recognized / returned to our control. The only dilemma facing the negotiators now at the table is what to do with the 500,000 or so non-natives living. As I mentioned earlier, your government has some pretty obtuse ideas about that but in the end the land is already ours. There is no more negotiation about it. That is the agreement in principle. End of story.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

So far neither the Crown, nor Canada has proven there were any land transfers that are legally binding, so the 6 miles on either side of the Grand River from its mouth to it source title is still ours.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Six Nations has nothing unless it negotiates a compromise that is acceptable to Canadians. Denying that reality will not change a thing.

[Who's Doing What?]

"By Right of Royal Proclaimation"

LMAO

Hahahahahahahahaha That is about the funniest thing I have heard today.

The Queen means nothing to me . I don't recognize her legitimacy of rule over me, or this country. I will not do her bidding. I will not bow to her. I do not believe she is in any way any better than myself just because of who's womb she came from.

So, as far as I am concerned, the Royal Proclaimation, whether it was from the Queen of today or a King of 300 years ago, means nothing.

[Okwaho]

"By Right of Royal Proclaimation"

LMAO

Hahahahahahahahaha That is about the funniest thing I have heard today.

The Queen means nothing to me . I don't recognize her legitimacy of rule over me, or this country. I will not do her bidding. I will not bow to her. I do not believe she is in any way any better than myself just because of who's womb she came from.

So, as far as I am concerned, the Royal Proclaimation, whether it was from the Queen of today or a King of 300 years ago, means nothing.

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Queen is your Sovereign! She is the head of state of Canada. The Canada you thought was sovereign is only autonomous and subject to the Crown!!! You recognized her sovereignty every time you voted!!!

[Okwaho]

The Queen means nothing to me . I don't recognize her legitimacy of rule over me, or this country. I will not do her bidding. I will not bow to her. I do not believe she is in any way any better than myself just because of who's womb she came from.

So, as far as I am concerned, the Royal Proclaimation, whether it was from the Queen of today or a King of 300 years ago, means nothing.

Becareful what you say about the Queen! http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267062.html#rid-267063

[Who's Doing What?]

"By Right of Royal Proclaimation"

LMAO

Hahahahahahahahaha That is about the funniest thing I have heard today.

The Queen means nothing to me . I don't recognize her legitimacy of rule over me, or this country. I will not do her bidding. I will not bow to her. I do not believe she is in any way any better than myself just because of who's womb she came from.

So, as far as I am concerned, the Royal Proclaimation, whether it was from the Queen of today or a King of 300 years ago, means nothing.

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Queen is your Sovereign! She is the head of state of Canada. The Canada you thought was sovereign is only autonomous and subject to the Crown!!! You recognized her sovereignty every time you voted!!!

Do you want to put the queen's right to rule this country to a vote?

We are a democracy after all.

A March 2005 poll prepared by Pollara Inc. for Rogers Media Inc. and Maclean's indicated that 46% supported, while 37% opposed the statement: "Do you support or oppose Canada replacing the British Monarch as Canadian Head of State?" (Source: Maclean's magazine, March 21, 2005, p.15).

The queen is barely a figurehead in this country, and she holds no personal sway over any politics.

That goes for your following post aswell.

[Okwaho]

"By Right of Royal Proclaimation"

LMAO

Hahahahahahahahaha That is about the funniest thing I have heard today.

The Queen means nothing to me . I don't recognize her legitimacy of rule over me, or this country. I will not do her bidding. I will not bow to her. I do not believe she is in any way any better than myself just because of who's womb she came from.

So, as far as I am concerned, the Royal Proclaimation, whether it was from the Queen of today or a King of 300 years ago, means nothing.

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Queen is your Sovereign! She is the head of state of Canada. The Canada you thought was sovereign is only autonomous and subject to the Crown!!! You recognized her sovereignty every time you voted!!!

Do you want to put the queen's right to rule this country to a vote?

We are a democracy after all.

A March 2005 poll prepared by Pollara Inc. for Rogers Media Inc. and Maclean's indicated that 46% supported, while 37% opposed the statement: "Do you support or oppose Canada replacing the British Monarch as Canadian Head of State?" (Source: Maclean's magazine, March 21, 2005, p.15).

The queen is barely a figurehead in this country, and she holds no personal sway over any politics.

That goes for your following post aswell.

You don't get it do you? You already are under Crown sovereignty! You are only a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy. The Governor General is the Crowns representative in Canada. She's not marely or even barely a figurehead she's Boss! She is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. You really should look into your political system you're so proud of! Here's a link to her roles and duties so you don't have to take my word for it! http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/G1_e.asp

[Who's Doing What?]

"By Right of Royal Proclaimation"

LMAO

Hahahahahahahahaha That is about the funniest thing I have heard today.

The Queen means nothing to me . I don't recognize her legitimacy of rule over me, or this country. I will not do her bidding. I will not bow to her. I do not believe she is in any way any better than myself just because of who's womb she came from.

So, as far as I am concerned, the Royal Proclaimation, whether it was from the Queen of today or a King of 300 years ago, means nothing.

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Queen is your Sovereign! She is the head of state of Canada. The Canada you thought was sovereign is only autonomous and subject to the Crown!!! You recognized her sovereignty every time you voted!!!

Do you want to put the queen's right to rule this country to a vote?

We are a democracy after all.

A March 2005 poll prepared by Pollara Inc. for Rogers Media Inc. and Maclean's indicated that 46% supported, while 37% opposed the statement: "Do you support or oppose Canada replacing the British Monarch as Canadian Head of State?" (Source: Maclean's magazine, March 21, 2005, p.15).

The queen is barely a figurehead in this country, and she holds no personal sway over any politics.

That goes for your following post aswell.

You don't get it do you? You already are under Crown sovereignty! You are only a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy. The Governor General is the Crowns representative in Canada. She's not marely or even barely a figurehead she's Boss! She is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. You really should look into your political system you're so proud of! Here's a link to her roles and duties so you don't have to take my word for it! http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/G1_e.asp

No you don't get it. It is in title only. She has no power. Did we follow britain into Iraq? NO!

If the people want to "Officially" get rid of the monarchy, the poll I posted suggests it would be gone. If the Queen actually tried to force our govt to do anything, the monarchy would be gone in a heartbeat. OOOOOHHH What is big bad England going to do? Conquer Canada again?

When the link between Canada and the Monarchy becomes an issue, it will be severed.

It has been said plenty of times that if the natives hadn't of fought with the british that Canada as we know it would be part of the United States. Ok lets look at that from another angle.

If the British had not faught with the natives then Kanata would be part of the United States. How would you like to be dealing with George Bush?

How about you owe Canadians because they fought and died for you.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

We are dealing with GWB since Haudenosaunee still hold lands in the US. GWB and the US Congress recognize our sovereignty.

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

We are dealing with GWB since Haudenosaunee still hold lands in the US. GWB and the US Congress recognize our sovereignty.

O:nen

Go try and evict a few people, and we'll see how long you stay recognized.

[ponyboy]

Gee Riverwind,your posts sure blow the theory that we need more women in politics because they are kinder and gentler.As for non-violent trade block-ades how are you gonna enforce that with all us white friends of Six Nations running around?As at Oka,Ipperwash, and now Cali the only violence came from the white side.Are you related to Bushes friend stevie?

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory - that is the law. If Six Nations respects the law then they will have to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement. If Six Nations chooses to violate Canada's territorial rights by smuggling goods then Six Nations is the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do: respect the law and negotiate a free trade agreement or use violance to take what they have no right to?

You mean like the violence the Canadian government used at oh,Oka,Ipperwash,Caledonia???What if we white boys did the smuggling.i'd fight oppression in ALL it,s ugly forms.The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE.Welcome to the twenty first century riverwind.

[Who's Doing What?]

Gee Riverwind,your posts sure blow the theory that we need more women in politics because they are kinder and gentler.As for non-violent trade block-ades how are you gonna enforce that with all us white friends of Six Nations running around?As at Oka,Ipperwash, and now Cali the only violence came from the white side.Are you related to Bushes friend stevie?

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory - that is the law. If Six Nations respects the law then they will have to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement. If Six Nations chooses to violate Canada's territorial rights by smuggling goods then Six Nations is the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do: respect the law and negotiate a free trade agreement or use violance to take what they have no right to?

You mean like the violence the Canadian government used at oh,Oka,Ipperwash,Caledonia???What if we white boys did the smuggling.i'd fight oppression in ALL it,s ugly forms.The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE.Welcome to the twenty first century riverwind.

Oh wow another one that gets taken to school and starts crying "Racist".

[Riverwind]

You mean like the violence the Canadian government used at oh,Oka,Ipperwash,Caledonia???What if we white boys did the smuggling.i'd fight oppression in ALL it,s ugly forms.The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE.Welcome to the twenty first century riverwind.

Boy you are getting desperate. You know you cannot argue with my logic their so you start throwing around accusations of racism. Let me state that again:

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory. If Six Nations wants to trade with the outside world it must negotiate a trade agreement with Canada. If Six Nations tries to smuggle goods through Canadian terroritory then it would be the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do? Negotiate, starve or start using violance?

[Okwaho]

Do you want to put the queen's right to rule this country to a vote?

We are a democracy after all.

No you don't get it. It is in title only. She has no power. Did we follow britain into Iraq? NO!

Read the role of the GG.

Canada became a country at Confederation in 1867. Our system of government is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and head of State. Sworn in on September 27, 2005, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, 27th governor general since Confederation, represents the Crown in Canada and carries out the duties of head of State.

The governor general presides over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the Chief Justice of Canada and cabinet ministers. One of the governor general's most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and government in place. In the case of the death of a prime minister, it is the governor general's responsibility to ensure the continuity of government.

The governor general has important parliamentary responsibilities. Canada's Parliament consists of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate and the governor general. It is the governor general who summons Parliament, sets out the government's program by reading the Speech from the Throne, and gives Royal Assent which makes Acts of Parliament law.

The governor general signs official documents and meets regularly with the prime minister and government officials. She has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

The governor general is Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces. She visits military personnel both at home and abroad, encouraging and honouring them.

The governor general receives royal visitors, heads of State and other prominent guests. She accepts the credentials of new ambassadors who represent their respective countries in Canada. In her State visits abroad, the Governor General leads delegations reflecting a broad range of Canadian interests, accomplishment and expertise.

From your Criminal Code.

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

( commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act

(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Everything from the Constitution to your passport in either "by way of Her Mejesty The Queen" or "in right of Her Megesty The Queen." Your law is set so the defendant vs. Her Magesty, The Queen or Regina represented by a Crown attorney. Every oath taken is a Crown oath. In other words everything is on behalf of the Crown.

So what you are telling me is all of this isn't real? That means you've been convicting and locking your people in jails and prisons for years without any proper legal address! Give your head a shake it's your law.

Canada has autonomy or self-government (which is not sovereignty) so they don't have to go to Iraq.

If the people want to "Officially" get rid of the monarchy, the poll I posted suggests it would be gone. If the Queen actually tried to force our govt to do anything, the monarchy would be gone in a heartbeat. OOOOOHHH What is big bad England going to do? Conquer Canada again?

When the link between Canada and the Monarchy becomes an issue, it will be severed.

As I have just pointed out the monarchy never left!!! Unfortunetly you only believe what you see and when you see it you don't want to believe it!

It has been said plenty of times that if the natives hadn't of fought with the british that Canada as we know it would be part of the United States. Ok lets look at that from another angle.

If the British had not faught with the natives then Kanata would be part of the United States. How would you like to be dealing with George Bush?

You really need to educate yourself. Half of the Confederacy fought for the U.S. against the British during the American Rev. war. We still have our territories in Upstate New York and as 'Tsi already pointed out to you the U.S. recognizes our sovereignty. The border is between British Subjects and American Citizens not us. I must be wrong though the border can't exist because Canada is no longer under Crown sovereignty. That means the 300 year old Treaty of Paris esablishing the border between Great Britain and the United States is no longer valid. I'd complain if I was you...why should you be held responsible and pay all of your hard earned tax dollars on a border that shouldn't be there anymore!

How about you owe Canadians because they fought and died for you.

Canadians fought and died for me? When and how?

Are you refering to WWI, WWII and Korea? If you are you've got it A$$ backwards. Our people have fought and died for Canadians during those wars. Francis Pegahmagabow was one of the highest decorated soldiers in a Canadian uniform in WWI. He was also I guess you'd say Native Activist. I know, I know here's a link http://canadawiki.org/index.php/Francis_Pegahmagabow. Tommy Prince was one of the highest decorated soldiers in a Canadian uniform in WWII. He also served two tours in Korea. Here's a link for him http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do;js...omcat1?id=14741. That's only two out of hundreds of our people that fought and died for Canada. None of them recieved any veterans assistance when they returned or pension when they were discharged.

[Okwaho]

Gee Riverwind,your posts sure blow the theory that we need more women in politics because they are kinder and gentler.As for non-violent trade block-ades how are you gonna enforce that with all us white friends of Six Nations running around?As at Oka,Ipperwash, and now Cali the only violence came from the white side.Are you related to Bushes friend stevie?

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory - that is the law. If Six Nations respects the law then they will have to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement. If Six Nations chooses to violate Canada's territorial rights by smuggling goods then Six Nations is the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do: respect the law and negotiate a free trade agreement or use violance to take what they have no right to?

You mean like the violence the Canadian government used at oh,Oka,Ipperwash,Caledonia???What if we white boys did the smuggling.i'd fight oppression in ALL it,s ugly forms.The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE.Welcome to the twenty first century riverwind.

Oh wow another one that gets taken to school and starts crying "Racist".

You've really got a reading and comprehension issue. If you read the post it says "we white boys"!

[Okwaho]

You mean like the violence the Canadian government used at oh,Oka,Ipperwash,Caledonia???What if we white boys did the smuggling.i'd fight oppression in ALL it,s ugly forms.The american south was full of people like you,HEY! guess what,THE BLACKS GOT THE VOTE.Welcome to the twenty first century riverwind.

Boy you are getting desperate. You know you cannot argue with my logic their so you start throwing around accusations of racism. Let me state that again:

Canada has a right to control trade through its territory. If Six Nations wants to trade with the outside world it must negotiate a trade agreement with Canada. If Six Nations tries to smuggle goods through Canadian terroritory then it would be the aggressor. So what would Six Nations do? Negotiate, starve or start using violance?

Again...reading and comprehension the post says "we white boys". I find it odd that you guys are constantly making the racism accusations especailly when a non-native posts. I told yous in the begining I can read you like last years Sears catalogue. Yous are so in denial you spit out the hynotic raciam chant this time on a non-native.