Jump to content

The myths of Caledonia


Recommended Posts

"Suppose their claims are ruled invalid by the courts? "

Their claims have already been ruled valid. The only issue is what kind of compensation not whether they will be entitled to compensation. Again it would help if someone bothered to make an effort to read the law and the legal issues that are actually in dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their claims have already been ruled valid. The only issue is what kind of compensation not whether they will be entitled to compensation. Again it would help if someone bothered to make an effort to read the law and the legal issues that are actually in dispute.
Please provide links to the appropriate judgements that deal specifically with the Six Nations claim. If Six Nations really had the court decisions on their side they would not be negotiating - they would simply ask the SCC to rule.

The government does have documentation to proves all of the Haldimand Grant was seceded to the crown. What Six Nations is trying to do is claim that the 6 people who signed the document were not authorized to do so. There is no reason to assume that the SCC would side with their interpretation of the facts. In fact, I believe that the facts are sufficiently vague that the SCC court rule either way depending on the biases of the judges on the bench at the time.

This not an issue of law. This is issue of a historical injustice that some people believe should be corrected by imposing unacceptable burdens on people who were not responsible for the injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fair market value of the Six Nations land claim - 6 miles on each side of the Grand River from its source to its mouth - is over $100 billion. That doesn't include the government mis-managed trust accounts which come in at about $25 billion.

Surprise. Six Nations doesn't want the money (good for us eh?). They want the land back or equivalent land in return.

100 billion??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep! $100 billion. With minimum interest it goes up about $10 million for every day our government delays a settlement. If the average land claim takes 15 years that means it will be approaching $150 billion by the time the government gets around to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep! $100 billion. With minimum interest it goes up about $10 million for every day our government delays a settlement. If the average land claim takes 15 years that means it will be approaching $150 billion by the time the government gets around to it.
The chances of Six Nations getting anywhere near that sum are net to zero. Even if the SCC ruled in Six Nations favour it is quite likely that the public outcry would be large enough to demand a constitutional amendment that limits liability in cases of historical injustices. At the end of the day Six Nations will get nothing more than what the democratic majority in Canada choose to give them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 square miles of manhatten would be 100 billion perhaps, but not a tiny pieve of land in Caledonia I;m afraid. that is ridiculous.
The claim includes the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. $100 billion is not a unreasonable estimate for the market value of the land. However, it is ridiculous to suggest that Six Nations would be entitled to compensation based on the value of developed land today. The federal government's position in other cases (i.e. the Mississauga New Credit claim) is that compensation is based on the market value of the land at the time it was misappropriated. I suspect that is why Six Nations is insisting on land instead of cash because the market value of undeveloped land in the 1840s was not that high - even if the amount is adjusted for inflation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not talking about a "tiny piece in Caledonia". The Haldimand Claim consists of nearly 3000 square miles occupied by over 60 cities and towns - most of which was squatted on. There were some legitimate leases, however at no time did Six nations sell or otherwise cede any other lands. According to the Haldimand Proclamation and the Royal Proclamation - both of which are recognized as law in our country - no lands could be sold except to the Crown. The Canadian government IS NOT the Crown, nor is the Province of Ontario.

It looks like we are snookered, legally. So the question is are Canadians honourable people who will do the honourable thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question is are Canadians honourable people who will do the honourable thing?
I see no honour in screwing millions of people for the benefit of a few thousand. If there was an injustice in the past it was not the fault of people living today. Therefore people living today have zero obligation to do anything about it. The only thing that people deserve are the things that they earn themselves in their lifetime. No one is entitled to anything simply because their ancestors had something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you advocate breaking the law and ignoring them? The Royal Proclamation IS NOT a law of the past. It is a present law entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When does the theft stop and we start complying with our own laws? Two tier justice where the natives get screwed every time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you advocate breaking the law and ignoring them?
Another irrelevant point. Laws don't have to be broken - they can be changed. We live in a democracy which means 50%+1 of the voters can strip all of the aboriginal rights provisions out of the constitution if they wanted to. I don't think that is necessary. Simplying placing a limit on liabilities for past injustices is sufficient.

IOW: the legalities of the issue mean nothing when the people who you wish to extort have the power to change the law. You could make the moral case for a symbolic redress of past wrongs that does not impose undue hardship on people who were not responsible for the wrong. However, demanding $100 billion in compensation or land equivalent goes way beyond a symbolic redress. It is really simply greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in a democracy which means 50%+1 of the voters can strip all of the aboriginal rights provisions out of the constitution if they wanted to. I don't think that is necessary. Simplying placing a limit on liabilities for past injustices is sufficient.

IOW: the legalities of the issue mean nothing when the people who you wish to extort have the power to change the law.

Try telling that to Renegade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...what you now are saying is that it is ok to ignore the law until you get a chance to change it to justify your breaking of it? Ya right! That's exactly what fascists do.

The law is the law. It is not special, nor in a civilized society does the government or its citizens have the luxury of picking and choosing when it is applicable. Otherwise citizens could easily just redefine and change laws they do not agree with - just like you are advocating now. How about I steal your car, change the ownership on it and call it mine? Do you think you would have a right to claim it back?

The land title is Six Nations. That has been recognized by the Crown and the British Government before that. How we come to a redress of the thefts is a matter of negotiation - the same negotiations that are taking place in Caledonia today. It may end up in money or land or both. We cannot magically produce forged documents and claim they are real, anymore than we can justify breaking the law of the land when it suits us.

But I see you are not an honourable citizen, so it doesn't surprise me you endorse a two tier system - one for Canadians and a separate more strict one for Indians. If I'm not mistaken that you fit you into the "racist" category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is the law. It is not special, nor in a civilized society does the government or its citizens have the luxury of picking and choosing when it is applicable.
Laws are changed all of the time to suit the needs of society. Many times groups that benefited from old laws lose out.

For example, in the 1980s the government brought in stricter pollution controls on cars. These laws severely hurt anyone who had a financial interest (workers, shareholders, communities) in the Big 3 auto companies because those companies did not have the technology to meet those controls. However, the new pollution controls were justified because the needs for cleaner air outweighed the economic interests of a minority.

The land title is Six Nations. That has been recognized by the Crown and the British Government before that.
The land was surrendered in 1841. There are documents to prove that. SN supporters who know more about the issue than you acknowledged that and try to claim that the 1841 surrender was not valid. If this case goes to court the court then everything will hinge on the validity of that document.
But I see you are not an honourable citizen
What your are demanding has nothing to do with 'honour'. It is pathetic, snivelling greed. If you had one shred of honour then you would not demand that people living today make ridiculous sacrifices to correct what may have been an injustice that occurred 150 years ago.
so it doesn't surprise me you endorse a two tier system - one for Canadians and a separate more strict one for Indians.
We have a two tier system alright but it is one biased in favour of aboriginals. Since you seem to think that the law is so important the why don't you look up the 'doctrine of latches'. This doctrine states that people forfeit all right to compensation if too much time passes. A group of white people would get nothing even if they could provide irrefutable proof that their ancestors would had their property stolen.

IOW: I would love to see a system where aboriginals and non-aboriginals are treated equally. It would mean that all aborginal entitlements would be ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about I steal your car, change the ownership on it and call it mine? Do you think you would have a right to claim it back?

But I see you are not an honourable citizen.

Steal my house why dont you? Once it is re-registered there is nothing I can do about. (granted it seems that the Govt has changed that in past weeks)

Same with the car, but the new law does not address that.

The second paragraph?...look in the mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting some links for interested people....

[Enlightening and disgusting.

Wakeupcaledonia is run by some unemployed guy trying to make money off his website. It is pretty lame, and totally misleading. He just wants to bad mouth everyone in order to try to give himself some self importance. There was supposed to be 20,000 people at one of his heavily promoted rallies and there was around 600. A complete disaster.

He likes to badmouth cops the way Baylee does.

He rallies people then turns on them.

What is bothersome is the lack of action on part of the Federal and Provincial Government and the Conservative MPs and MPPs.

Meanwhile Jane Stewart and Barbara McDougal are making $1350 per day. I am sure at that price they will be done in no time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no honour in screwing millions of people for the benefit of a few thousand.

Settling a land claim is screwing millions of people? The people of Caledonia would love to see this settled sooner not later.

If there was an injustice in the past it was not the fault of people living today. Therefore people living today have zero obligation to do anything about it. The only thing that people deserve are the things that they earn themselves in their lifetime. No one is entitled to anything simply because their ancestors had something.

Is this your life philosophy or the rule of law according to Riverwind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Settling a land claim is screwing millions of people? The people of Caledonia would love to see this settled sooner not later.
Depends on what you mean by 'settling the claim'. Some people in SN have much more modest demands which probably could be settled without much harm. However, the claim made on this thread is $100 billion or land equivalent. That is half of the annual federal budget of the country going to a group of 20,000 people. What services would you cut to pay the bill? Healthcare? Education?

You also must keep in mind that this is just one claim from one band out of 600+. An overly rich settlement for SN would encourage others to demand just as much.

Is this your life philosophy or the rule of law according to Riverwind?
It is the philosophy of people who believe in an egalitarian society. The concept of aboriginal rights was created by a leaders of a feudal society (i.e. Britain) where inherited privilege was accepted. Today, no one accepts that certain people should be allowed to have special privileges because their ancestors did a favour for a long dead monarch. The lords and ladies in Britain had all of their privileges stripped by the democratic majority in the same way I believe that aboriginal rights should be stripped away in Canada.

Do you believe that the people of Britain were wrong when they ended the inherited privileges of the nobility? If no then why do you defend aboriginal rights which are essentially the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LAW ISN'T changed. So are you going to comply with it or are you going to claim an exemption? That is the issue. Who cares if the law can be changed? The point is, it IS the law today and tomorrow.

There can never be equality when inequity is present nor can justice prevail where there is an injustice present. These are the tenets of law and our system. Now what we do have is negotiation - honest and honourable negotiation. If we fail that then we fail equity and justice.

As to you assertion that the government holds documents concerning the sale of the lands you are wrong. All our government has said is that they think it was contained in the documents but have so far failed to meet that burden of proof. Six Nations just introduced a copy of sales that prove that the British were selling land (not by the authority of the Crown mind you) to the Plank Road at least six months before they said they had Six nations sign away the land. How can you sell something that doesn't belong to you? Ah yes ignore the law and then cover your tracks - just as you have suggested. Ignore the law and then change the evidence to say your theft was legal.

I can see where that mentality comes from. What shocks me is that people like you still think the same way. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...