Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[Posit]

So tell me again. Why should we believe Six Nations claims about what happened in 1837?

Because the British version complete with government records match their side of the storey exactly. The government claimed in the beginning that first Six Nations leased the land, and when asked for copies of the leases now in default, government claimed the lands were really sold. Then about 4 months ago they were asked for the treaties, land sales or quit claim documents and the negotiators conveniently claimed that there was no single document that said they sold it but a number of different papers that indicated it might have been sold. Six Nations negotiators are still waiting for those "number of different papers" that the government can't put their finger on. There only response...."We need more time."

Six Nations on the other hand has based its claim on the British records and provide a complete accounting of the lands and trust monies identified in their claims. The government accepted those claims a about 10 years ago when Six Nations was presenting their court evidence. Knowing they would lose the case, the government asked Six Nations to stop the civil court proceeding and take it to negotiations. That's where it has stood for about 9 years with the government "needing more time" every time there was a request to proceed.

Six Nations, as patient as they have been for the 20 or so years these claims have been in the works, has run out of patience. By reclaiming land, and exercising jurisdiction over they are moving forward and requiring the government to make the case - something they are reluctant and most likely unable to do.

The question isn't whether Native people have the right to vote - something granted in the 60's with the intention of assuming they were Canadian citizens, but "how many Six Nations people vote" in any of the federal, provincial, or band elections. The fact is that it is less than 10%, which is hardly any suggestion that they are Canadian. There are about 10% who either support the Canadian system or who don't know any better. That doesn't make them all Canadian by any stretch of the imagination.

And so all of those media sluts out there that like to condemn people or groups of people through your xenophobic filters, take note. The story of the builder getting beat up is changin as more information becomes available. As I mentioned earlier, now a couple of eye witnesses are coming forward saying that the builder, a friend and a couple of nephews went in to remove a couple of teenagers from blocking the front entry of the house they were building when they got into a fist of cuffs with them. The two nephew admittedly went outside to get a couple of two by fours and when they returned the builder was lying unconsciouses and the kids were running down the street.

I realize this is just another story, but as time progresses the media gets a little more correct. Just be patient. I'm sure that once all your hysteria settles down we'll find is was nothing more than machismo that got between two sides of a dispute.

Snip:

"The 33-year-old said he and a cousin left the house to grab two-by-fours and started back in to discover Gualtieri lying on the floor as he was struck with a piece of wood. Davies said he screamed to natives outside the house for help and the attackers fled."

The Hamilton Spectator

[Riverwind]

Then about 4 months ago they were asked for the treaties, land sales or quit claim documents and the negotiators conveniently claimed that there was no single document that said they sold it but a number of different papers that indicated it might have been sold.

I have actually read a number of documents which do, in fact, suggest that the entire Grand River tract was surrender to the crown 1841 (links are in some earlier post). These documents do seem to indicate that some land around Brantford was retained and leased, however, there is no doubt that the majority of the land was surrendered. Six Nations wishes to claim that the 6 people who signed the document were not authorized to do so, however, that claim is virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt 150 years after the deaths of the people involved.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that the Six Nations community was divided in the 1840s and that some members opposed the surrender of the lands but others did not. The government signed a deal with people who they believed had the legal authority to represent the community but the dissenters never gave up and their single note narrative is now accepted as truth even though documents clearly indicate the situtation was much more complex.

The Six Nation's case is not legally air tight and they know they could lose. That is why they are resorting to violance and extortion instead of simply going to court. I don't think the government has an air tight case either and that is why some sort of negotiated solution is required.

Bottom line - the legal record is convoluted and complex and no side can say that they are 100% correct. That is why i say this is political problem that needs a political solution.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

Actually those records you have seen are usually only signed by about six people and the Indian agent. The IA's were known to have plied the Indians up with liquor before getting them to sign stuff.

However, the Royal Proclamation set out the way that land was to be ceded and not only did it require the consent of the Governor, it required a consensus of the community. These are some of the things that have been point out. There is also one document that purports to contain all 50 signatures of the chiefs giving up a substantial land base. Funny thing is Six Nations has never had anymore than about 25 Chiefs since they arrived. The document provide by the government was a clear forgery.

And no the "whole tract" was never given away, sold or leased. Not nearly. In 1805 Six Nations started petitioning the British government stating that squatting was occurring on the Haldimand despite their assurances that it would never happen. When asked to remove the squatters and settlers, the government's response was to do nothing. Then a couple of years later the new governor, Samuel Jarvis arbitrarily removed about 400,000 acres from the tract citing that because squatters had already settled it would be impossible to relocate them. Since then that same tactics have been used over and over again until now Six Nations is a little over 44,000 acres. The majority of the Tract was never ceded. It was stolen clearly and contained with the records of Jarvis' illegal conversions.

Backgrounder - Burtch Tract Claim

Further there were some lands that Six Nations believed that by leasing they could easily retain ownership, let the settlers clear lands for agriculture and benefit Six Nations economically. The leases were for fixed terms, most for 99 years. However when the written documents appeared (aftern being handled by the government) some of the lease periods had been altered to 999 years - a ridiculous attempt at fraud. The government maintains that Six Nations leased the land for that period of time, yet fails to consider the correspondence that states that Six Nations only agreed to 99 years.

The bottom line is that the majority of the Haldimand has never been ceded, sold or leased. The titles that people obtain were inventions of lawyers in the 20th century when they tried to sell lands that had been prefixed without consent. That is the battle Six Nations is facing and our government has little to stand on in contrast.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Posit

[Riverwind]

Actually those records you have seen are usually only signed by about six people and the Indian agent. The IA's were known to have plied the Indians up with liquor before getting them to sign stuff.

A meaningless argument since you have no proof that such a thing occurred at this time.

However, the Royal Proclamation set out the way that land was to be ceded and not only did it require the consent of the Governor, it required a consensus of the community.

You are grasping for straws. How do you measure consensus? Brant unloaded a lot of property using only his signature because he was authorized to do so by the chiefs. That is why the Six Nations case is not rock solid. The court could decide that the 6 did actually represent the community at the time which means the transfer is legal and final.

And no the "whole tract" was never given away, sold or leased. Not nearly. In 1805 Six Nations started petitioning the British government stating that squatting was occurring on the Haldimand despite their assurances that it would never happen.

The documents I read talked about individual chiefs selling blocks of land to these so-called squatters. These chiefs may not have been authorized to do so but they still took the money. The Government took the position that accepting the money constituted a sale and that it was unreasonable to evict these settlers.

In other words, there are two sides to every story. You are trying to paint the Six Nations as helpless victims of 'squatters' when they may have actually been complicit.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

A meaningless argument since you have no proof that such a thing occurred at this time.

You are grasping for straws. How do you measure consensus? Brant unloaded a lot of property using only his signature because he was authorized to do so by the chiefs. That is why the Six Nations case is not rock solid. The court could decide that the 6 did actually represent the community at the time which means the transfer is legal and final.

The documents I read talked about individual chiefs selling blocks of land to these so-called squatters. These chiefs may not have been authorized to do so but they still took the money. The Government took the position that accepting the money constituted a sale and that it was unreasonable to evict these settlers.

In other words, there are two sides to every story. You are trying to paint the Six Nations as helpless victims of 'squatters' when they may have actually been complicit.

You've been reading the back of the Cheerios box for your history lesson again, haven't you....

Consensus was required and Brant was never authorized by any Chiefs to negotiate on their behalf. In fact Brant was exiled to Hamilton long before some of the major land sales were supposed to have occurred. That is the fact.

No land was every sold to "squatters". Otherwise they would never have been called "squatters" like duh! No money exchanged hands and all the monies that was supposed to be for the approved leases was placed in a trust account that the government, through William Claus IA was misappropriated. Money was seconded by the government and invested in the failed Grand River Navigation company (which tunred out to be a fraud) and some of it was borrowed from the trust (and never repaid) to build Osgoode Hall and a number of other government projects. I doubt you have read ANY documents since the stench of bullshit is so strong I can smell through the internet.

The government has recognized a number of fraud and illegal land occupations both at Six Nations and the Haldimand and Tyendinaga. The claims to the rest of the Haldimand and the rest of Tyendinaga (again all lands above the 401 were stolen) will be submitted shortly. The problem with all the records is that they prove the claims are real. The government has attempted every trick in the book to obfuscate, delay and deny the claims. Ultimately, one by one they are admitting malfeasance and setting out the plan and process to return lands where possible and provide compensation for loss of use. In fact the local papers at Tyendinaga just noted that the Band Council is currently working with a consultant to determine the actual costs of loss of use of the Culbertson tract, accumulative since 1840. This study was requested by the government for only those lands (primarily Deseronto) that cannot be immediately returned. However, the government has preliminarily agreed to an acquisition plan - meaning they are willing to start buying homes from people who want to sell.

Oh and BTW. When the Attorney General's staff made a public statement that Six Nations would not win in court, it was not based on any sound legal precedent. They said the same thing about Delgamuukw before it went to court and look where it got them.

And in other words, you are full of hockey baloney.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Posit

[jbg]

The government has recognized a number of fraud and illegal land occupations both at Six Nations and the Haldimand and Tyendinaga.

I'm having trouble, given your sentence structure, understanding your post.

The claims to the rest of the Haldimand and the rest of Tyendinaga (again all lands above the 401 were stolen) will be submitted shortly.

Let's see,all land between the 401 and how far? Ottawa? Kapuskasing? Moosonee? Iqalit? The North Pole?

The problem with all the records is that they prove the claims are real. The government has attempted every trick in the book to obfuscate, delay and deny the claims. Ultimately, one by one they are admitting malfeasance and setting out the plan and process to return lands where possible and provide compensation for loss of use. In fact the local papers at Tyendinaga just noted that the Band Council is currently working with a consultant to determine the actual costs of loss of use of the Culbertson tract, accumulative since 1840. This study was requested by the government for only those lands (primarily Deseronto) that cannot be immediately returned. However, the government has preliminarily agreed to an acquisition plan - meaning they are willing to start buying homes from people who want to sell.

Would it be an equitable solution for you if whitey evacuated all of this land, blew up the structures, and stopped financial support? If they then sold the land back to "whitey" would those sales be subject to being vacated because of "fraud"?

Oh and BTW. When the Attorney General's staff made a public statement that Six Nations would not win in court, it was not based on any sound legal precedent. They said the same thing about Delgamuukw before it went to court and look where it got them.

Can you e-mail me your legal memoranda, with precedent? Mail to [email protected]

And in other words, you are full of hockey baloney.

Very cogent. I thought it was Oscar Mayer brand baloney though.

[Riverwind]

Consensus was required and Brant was never authorized by any Chiefs to negotiate on their behalf. In fact Brant was exiled to Hamilton long before some of the major land sales were supposed to have occurred. That is the fact.

No it is not. There are many land transfer documents with Brant's signature and he was accepted as the authority at the time. He may have lost out in the tribal politics but that does not give Six Nations the right to repudiate the deals he signed 150 years later.

No land was every sold to "squatters". Otherwise they would never have been called "squatters" like duh!

The term squatter is something the Six Nation activists made up because they think it helps their cause politically. If you read the correspondence from the governor to the Six Nation chiefs in 1841 you will not see the word squatter. The governor stated quite clearly that he would not evict settlers who paid money for lands.

Oh and BTW. When the Attorney General's staff made a public statement that Six Nations would not win in court, it was not based on any sound legal precedent. They said the same thing about Delgamuukw before it went to court and look where it got them.

I have never said that Six Nations would never win. I am simply stating that the facts of this case are murky and every argument has a counter argument. When this case gets to court the supreme court justices will be fully aware that allowing ~$1 trillion claim against the government for things that happened 150 years ago would likely trigger a constitutional crisis that would hurt aboriginals in the long run. The SCC will likely try to find some middle ground that accepts some of the minor claims but denies others and ultimately upholds the right of the government to limit compensation for past wrongs. Edited September 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

I have actually read a number of documents which do, in fact, suggest that the entire Grand River tract was surrender to the crown 1841 (links are in some earlier post). These documents do seem to indicate that some land around Brantford was retained and leased, however, there is no doubt that the majority of the land was surrendered. Six Nations wishes to claim that the 6 people who signed the document were not authorized to do so, however, that claim is virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt 150 years after the deaths of the people involved.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that the Six Nations community was divided in the 1840s and that some members opposed the surrender of the lands but others did not. The government signed a deal with people who they believed had the legal authority to represent the community but the dissenters never gave up and their single note narrative is now accepted as truth even though documents clearly indicate the situtation was much more complex.

The Six Nation's case is not legally air tight and they know they could lose. That is why they are resorting to violance and extortion instead of simply going to court. I don't think the government has an air tight case either and that is why some sort of negotiated solution is required.

Bottom line - the legal record is convoluted and complex and no side can say that they are 100% correct. That is why i say this is political problem that needs a political solution.

Lots of people have read those documents, Riverwind. It is the legality of the various documents that is the subject of the negotiations, and most people cannot judge that just by reading them. The only thing that matters is which of those documents the government chooses to produce as valid evidence in the end.

To date, they have produced no evidence of surrender of the Plank Road Tract (reclamation site), though they make a verbal claim that it was surrendered. They asked for six months to do the research, though the surrender document itself is easily available. It appears, therefore, they do not consider that document by itself to be sufficient, perhaps due to evidence that Six Nations has provided, including Council minutes recording their decisions.

Assuming that a document contains the final answers is a risky business. For example, if a document stated that Joseph Brant authorized a land sale or surrender, you must ask 'Where is the document authorizing Joseph Brant to do so on behalf of the entire Confederacy for this particular property in this particular time period?'

Re: "violence"

The act of violence was extremely regrettable and was not condoned by the Confederacy. The Confederacy negotiator on the site was about 5 minutes away from an agreement with the developer when the incident happened out of their sight. The youths reacted badly and the builder was seriously injured. In fairness, I will also say that it appears that the builder saw the youths in the house, which bothered him. However, instead of approaching police and Confederacy leadership who were right there everywhere, he and his crew went behind the house where the police would not see them go in, and confronted them upstairs in the house. We all pray for Mr Gaultierri's complete recovery, and for justice.

"extortion"

Since last January when the Women Titleholders asserted rights in the Haldimand Tract, the Confederacy has been overwhelmed by developers coming to them for 'approval' of their projects in the tract. Some developers searched their titles all the way back, and acknowledged that there was no document of transfer from Six Nations to the Crown. The word quickly spread: "They are right. Our titles are not clear." And they want to do business ... now. To deal with the developers 'go-ahead' needs, the Confederacy Council has set up a Green Plan and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute to review and approve applications, asserting jurisdiction over development in their traditional territory, and no one has yet said "No", not that it would matter.

This is all very consistent with land use planning and revenue sharing agreements made through treaties. They have a legal interest in the land, and a right to revenues from the land. In this case revenues are development fees. In some cases it's logging, mining, fishing, rights etc. Here the industry is rampant land development, leapfrogging the 'oopsyoumissedit-greenbelt'.

Six Nations Confederacy's Green Plan is harsh about development on greenfield, especially on their current perimeter (Caledonia, Brantford). The Six Nations Confederacy Council has worked with conservation authorities, PIRGs and other environmental and citizens' groups who have approached them with their concerns about specific projects (eg Waterloo moraine).

It takes a hell of a load off the province for 'consulting' or negotiating through all that with every developer. (Can you say ... never happen!) Yes it anticipates certain 'settlements' such as the right to revenue sharing (already established in treaties elsewhere). This is a go-forward now with economic development, which is linked to provincial while continuing to negotiate past debts and land. It saves a lot of time and frustration for all of us: They are just doing it. The big developers 'get it' because they respect land title. The local shoestring operators are in denial about that, and not prepared for unexpected expenses. I think the province owes them some help.

However, I think extortion is a bit extreme, when Six Nations interests in the land are well known and other modern treaties include such provisions.

And Dalton is ducking the issue, not saying no, maybe even said 'yes' about "the HDI". hmm.

And Tory would say he'd have to speak to them firmly about that, from his Premier's chair.

And Howard Hampton is sensibly hiring James Bartleman to lead fair consultations about land uses ... in his dreams of being elected Premier.

Somebody better do something. There are 6 blockades in Ontario because Ontario refuses to consult about (unwelcome) provincially authorized land uses, despite their SCoC obligation to do so. Ipperwash, Caledonia, Sharbot Lake, Grassy Narrows, Tyendinaga, Big Trout Lake: All blockaded for lack of provincial consultation. hmm

Edited September 16, 2007 by jennie

[noahbody]

Re: "violence"

In fairness, I will also say that it appears that the builder saw the youths in the house, which bothered him. However, instead of approaching police and Confederacy leadership who were right there everywhere, he and his crew went behind the house where the police would not see them go in, and confronted them upstairs in the house.

In fairness, do you have a source for this? I've read this:

"Joe Gualtieri, the injured man’s brother said he wants those responsible for the attack charged with attempted murder.

He said his nephews were with his brother at the house when a group of aboriginals went inside and confronted them."

[jennie]

In fairness, do you have a source for this? I've read this:

"Joe Gualtieri, the injured man’s brother said he wants those responsible for the attack charged with attempted murder.

He said his nephews were with his brother at the house when a group of aboriginals went inside and confronted them."

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/248180

If this link is not good, I can get the text.

There were several versions, but the ones from people who were at the site were consistent with this one.

I think the Spec did a good job of getting to the facts of how it came about. They know how these things get analyzed.

No one defends the severity of the attack on Mr Gaultieri. What happened inside is not known, but his injuries are extremely regrettable. The police are investigating in order to lay charges, the Confederacy is cooperating, and asking the youths to come forward. It is not clear what they were doing in the house, or what happened when Mr. Gaultieri came in, apparently ahead of his nephews.

When I went to the site this afternoon, the police said everyone had left.

Edited September 16, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

I'm having trouble, given your sentence structure, understanding your post.

My apoligies. Sometimes in my haste I fail to correct all my grammar. Read:

"The government has recognized a number of fraudulent and illegal land settlements...."

Let's see,all land between the 401 and how far? Ottawa? Kapuskasing? Moosonee? Iqalit? The North Pole?

The Northern Boundary of the territory would be Tyendinaga Township extending another 20 miles north encompassing 95,000 acres.

Would it be an equitable solution for you if whitey evacuated all of this land, blew up the structures, and stopped financial support? If they then sold the land back to "whitey" would those sales be subject to being vacated because of "fraud"?

What would be equitable first of all it would be for you to stop using racial terms. It stain us all. As far as the land goes, The natives have stated repeatedly that they want land back. Where the government can purchase it, they will buy it. Negotiations are now taking place that will determine what to do with the rest. A drive through Deseronto, reveals that many houses are up for sale. I believe that is the first thing the government asks for before the expropriate so that they have a fair market value that they pay out in purchase.

Can you e-mail me your legal memoranda, with precedent? Mail to [email protected]

Now I see where your racist overtones come from. If you are indeed a lawyer with CH11, you are part of the that sensationalist rag that has consistently put down the natives....kinda a National Enquirer on TV. But on your point, Six Nations has already presented the Council minutes, and the correspondence in both cases and it has been accepted. You are not entitled to review them unless you can invent some reason for being part of the negotiation process.

[jbg]

Now I see where your racist overtones come from. If you are indeed a lawyer with CH11, you are part of the that sensationalist rag that has consistently put down the natives....kinda a National Enquirer on TV. But on your point, Six Nations has already presented the Council minutes, and the correspondence in both cases and it has been accepted. You are not entitled to review them unless you can invent some reason for being part of the negotiation process.

What rag? And no, I'm not going to invent anything. Since I'm born, bred, raised and no live 40 Trudeau Units from NYC I'm not likely to be part of that process.

I was just interested. In Canada, a proof is a proof.

[Pliny]

What rag? And no, I'm not going to invent anything. Since I'm born, bred, raised and no live 40 Trudeau Units from NYC I'm not likely to be part of that process.

I was just interested. In Canada, a proof is a proof.

He likes to pretend he understands, jbg. He thought CH11 was channel 11 on TV or the magazine from channel 11.

I believe it is Chapter 11???

Posit, If anyone knows about racism it would be jbg.

[jbg]

He likes to pretend he understands, jbg. He thought CH11 was channel 11 on TV or the magazine from channel 11.

I believe it is Chapter 11???

Posit, If anyone knows about racism it would be jbg.

Yes, it is Chapter 11. Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code is the provision that allows management of a company to at least initially remain in control of a distressed company while it works out a plan to pay all or a part of a company's debts. The theory is that a going concern is worth more to creditors and the community than one that's put out of business.

I will admit to having experienced little racism, other than being called a "cheap sh*t, low life Jew" by a court adversary I ran into on the sidewalk about 1 mile from the courthouse and about 45 minutes after a disastrous hearing (for her). Her own lawyer at the time was also Jewish. Go figure.

[jbg]

Now I see where your racist overtones come from. If you are indeed a lawyer with CH11, you are part of the that sensationalist rag that has consistently put down the natives....kinda a National Enquirer on TV. But on your point, Six Nations has already presented the Council minutes, and the correspondence in both cases and it has been accepted. You are not entitled to review them unless you can invent some reason for being part of the negotiation process.

Rather than just calling people "racist" why don't you answer a question I posed to you and Jennie on this issue (link)?

[jennie]

Rather than just calling people "racist" why don't you answer a question I posed to you and Jennie on this issue (link)?

Answer is .... Who said who had to go back where?

Wasn't me.

[Keepitsimple]

Back to the original topic of the UN declaration.....now that the emotion has been drained and common sense has had a chance to prevail, even the Toronto Star supports the decision to vote against the declaration - yes - even the Toronto Star! Their reasoning is clear - as it should be to anyone who takes the time to actually read the declaration.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/256867

Despite this criticism, it would have been difficult for Canada to support the declaration in its current form. Its fuzzy wording and overly broad guarantees threaten to undermine our legal framework for addressing aboriginal rights, which has been hammered out over decades of constitutional developments and court decisions.

As imperfect as our current system is, John McNee, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, was right to register Canada's "significant concerns" about this flawed declaration and vote against it.

Particularly troubling is the "right to self-determination" in article 3. Notwithstanding last-minute changes to the declaration that purport to protect the territorial integrity of existing states, could this phrase go beyond encouraging legitimate aspirations for native self-government and empower full-blown secessionist movements?

Based on the declaration, it's hard to tell. That's worrisome.

Also wide open to interpretation is article 26, which says aboriginal people "have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." Canada already recognizes aboriginal land rights both in treaties and in a well-established, if cumbersome, land-claims process.

The effect of the declaration is unclear. It is anyone's guess whether natives could use it to reopen long-settled treaties, or claim large parts of urban Canada, with UN backing, because they once fished there.

Article 19, which says governments should consult aboriginals "in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent" before adopting laws that affect them, also leaves too much to the imagination. Of course, Canada's native people should have a say in such circumstances. But if the upshot is to oblige the government to sound out every native community in the country and give them a virtual veto over any measure that could possibly touch them, the potential for legislative paralysis across Canada would be profound.

True, the declaration is non-binding. But even without legal teeth, it still carries a moral weight that could seriously undermine the relationship between natives and non-natives in Canada.

[jennie]

Back to the original topic of the UN declaration.....now that the emotion has been drained and common sense has had a chance to prevail, even the Toronto Star supports the decision to vote against the declaration - yes - even the Toronto Star! Their reasoning is clear - as it should be to anyone who takes the time to actually read the declaration.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/256867

Particularly troubling is the "right to self-determination" in article 3. Notwithstanding last-minute changes to the declaration that purport to protect the territorial integrity of existing states, could this phrase go beyond encouraging legitimate aspirations for native self-government and empower full-blown secessionist movements?

If people are being oppressed by a dominant country, they have every right to seek freedom from that country. Disagreeing with self-determination is disagreeing with freedom itself, and consigning some peoples forever to repressive domination.

Canada is wrong wrong wrong to try to FORCE Indigenous Peoples to endure the domination of the racist Indian Act and second class 'citizenship', land theft and fraud, and the genocide of the residential schools and the ongoing genocide for land.

It is not at all surprising that Canada defends its right to oppress Indigenous Peoples and steal their land: Canada is an oppressive tyranny.

Edited September 17, 2007 by jennie

[White Doors]

Holy hyperbole batman.

you posts have decended to near lunatic levels.

the second to my ignore list.

congratulations.

[jennie]

Holy hyperbole batman.

you posts have decended to near lunatic levels.

the second to my ignore list.

congratulations.

Ignore as you like, the truth still exists.

Canada stole the land and doesn't want to give it back, as required by law. That is definitive of an oppressive tyranny, one that evades even its own laws in order to oppress the rights of a significant minority that can potentially disrupt its power and economy. Canada is running scared, and it is not a pretty sight.

Edited September 17, 2007 by jennie

[AngusThermopyle]

the ongoing genocide for land.

Now you've really piqued my curiosity. Could you provide some facts and numbers to illustrate that statement? You know, body counts and places where they occurred. Locations of mass graves. Or perhaps if you are reffering to some sort of cultural genocide could you give specific instances of it?

What I see more and more is Native culture being made mainstream. T.V. specials of people engaging in their traditional music and dances. Native presence at all significant National celebrations, native art being high lighted. That sort of thing.

[Posit]

Now you've really piqued my curiosity. Could you provide some facts and numbers to illustrate that statement? You know, body counts and places where they occurred. Locations of mass graves. Or perhaps if you are reffering to some sort of cultural genocide could you give specific instances of it?

What I see more and more is Native culture being made mainstream. T.V. specials of people engaging in their traditional music and dances. Native presence at all significant National celebrations, native art being high lighted. That sort of thing.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will no doubt reveal many atrocities. However, for you immediate interest, the United Church has admitted in documents that will be submitted to the TRC, that many children in residential schools died under their care. Eye witness testamony will also show that deaths did not just occur as a result of sickness, but that children died as a result of be malnourished, physically and sexually abused and beaten to death. The current estimate is that 50,000 children perished in residential schools. However the toll is bound to increase once the witnesses start to reveal the locations of mass graves at those schools.

As recently as this year, Phil Fountaine AFN Chief stated that native children are being removed from their homes on reserve by the Children's Aid Society and other welfare agencies and sent to non-native foster homes a distance away from their homes at alarming rates. The reason given in a majority of cases is because of poverty. The accepted definition of genocide as prescribed by the UN includes the removal of children from their communities - for any reason. Poverty is not a reason under the Child Welfare Act that children can be removed from their homes and families.

Genocide is on-going. It is just hidden behind a different process.

[Riverwind]

Eye witness testamony will also show that deaths did not just occur as a result of sickness, but that children died as a result of be malnourished, physically and sexually abused and beaten to death.

Anecdotes by eye witnesses do not provide useful statistical information. People remember what they chose to remember and cannot be trusted to provide a complete picture.

As recently as this year, Phil Fountaine AFN Chief stated that native children are being removed from their homes on reserve by the Children's Aid Society and other welfare agencies and sent to non-native foster homes a distance away from their homes at alarming rates.

Because the children were at risk and there were no suitable native foster families. There have been many cases where a native child has died because CAS felt pressured to leave the child in a dangerous environment because of pressure from people like you.

The accepted definition of genocide as prescribed by the UN includes the removal of children from their communities - for any reason.

BS. Removing children from drug addicted parents who are unable to care for them is a duty. Calling it genocide is a perversion of the language and demonstrates that you are more interested in peddling propoganda than the truth. Edited September 18, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

The current estimate is that 50,000 children perished in residential schools.

That is an estimate in the past tense, it is not indicative of a current or ongoing situation. It also does not provide any hard fast numbers, merely an estimate. It must also be asked who's estimate it is. If true it really is shamefull, in line with what has happened many times in the past when people were far less aware of the moral rectitude of their actions.

witnesses start to reveal the locations of mass graves at those schools.

This statement begs a very obvious question. If these mass graves do indeed exist why has no one made any effort to exhume them? I would think that if they were so frequent some person or persons would have made an effort to unearth them. If as you say they are in school basements, or even in the vicinity of these schools they certainly would not be too hard to find. We found several when I was in Yugo, and those ones were miles from the scene of the killings, sometimes in deep woods. Find one mass grave and inform the Media, either Mainstream or Independent and they'd be all over it like sh*t sticking to a wool blanket.

As recently as this year, Phil Fountaine AFN Chief stated that native children are being removed from their homes on reserve by the Children's Aid Society and other welfare agencies

This is an interesting point, however, once again no numbers. How many children are removed? I've known many foster families who had white kids they cared for. I would hope that as a society we would intervene for the sake of children when they are in an unfit home. Did Phil mention any reasons for the removal of these children?

I'm sorry, so far you have not managed to convince me of some ongoing Genocide. What you have done is give me your viewpoint with no hard numbers or facts to back it up. If you could answer my questions in this post I would appreciate it.

[Posit]

That is an estimate in the past tense, it is not indicative of a current or ongoing situation. It also does not provide any hard fast numbers, merely an estimate. It must also be asked who's estimate it is. If true it really is shamefull, in line with what has happened many times in the past when people were far less aware of the moral rectitude of their actions.

This statement begs a very obvious question. If these mass graves do indeed exist why has no one made any effort to exhume them? I would think that if they were so frequent some person or persons would have made an effort to unearth them. If as you say they are in school basements, or even in the vicinity of these schools they certainly would not be too hard to find. We found several when I was in Yugo, and those ones were miles from the scene of the killings, sometimes in deep woods. Find one mass grave and inform the Media, either Mainstream or Independent and they'd be all over it like sh*t sticking to a wool blanket.

This is an interesting point, however, once again no numbers. How many children are removed? I've known many foster families who had white kids they cared for. I would hope that as a society we would intervene for the sake of children when they are in an unfit home. Did Phil mention any reasons for the removal of these children?

I'm sorry, so far you have not managed to convince me of some ongoing Genocide. What you have done is give me your viewpoint with no hard numbers or facts to back it up. If you could answer my questions in this post I would appreciate it.

The last residential school was closed in and around 1988. That's not that long ago. If fact is is recent enough to realize that the attitudes that created and maintained residential schools hasn't even cleared the current generation. Residential schools were not just some "moral attitude of the times" schtick. They were real attempts to brainwash children - to abduct them from their families and their communities and impose a foreign language, and to remove their own language and culture. There were murders and abuse of 5 and six year olds. There were nightly sexual trysts with the priest and nuns. There was solitary confinement for older children who would not submit. There was deliberate starvation and scientific experiments on these children - all under the cloak of caring for them. Yes forced assimilation is genocide.

So let's bring it to the (more) present. The present estimate have approximately 5% of native children being removed from their childhood homes. This is disproportionate to mainstream, where only less than 1% are removed and then only after extensive consultation with the parents. More often than not mainstream children are placed in the same community, attending the same schools and see their friends. In more extreme cases they are moved to another neighbourhood but frequent visits are arranged to maintain contact with important family members to maintain continuity.

The most common reason in the mainstream for removing children is for the children's protection. Alcoholism and drug abuse are not considered as sufficient reason to remove a child from the mainstream community and instead there must be a physical, emotional or sexual harm demonstrated. In native communities, children are removed because they live in poverty - income based - regardless of whether ot not the parents subsist off the land. Alcoholism, drug abuse and unkempt houses are used as justification for removal. When native children are removed from the family home there is no attempt to find local foster care, or to place them with extended family members. Instead they are whisked away to the big cities, often times hundreds of miles away from the native community and isolated from all family. They are usually placed in non-native homes who have little knowledge of culture, or language or the communities they came from.

As well we all know that statistically there are more native people in prison than any other ethnic or cultural group in Canada. Yet natives make up less than 5% of the total population they represent as much as 60% of the prison inmates in western prisons. As recently as this week, a group of about 20 Navaho natives traveling across Canada were arrested and are being held on a mandatory 48 hour detention when they entered Ontario and are being treated as terrorists despite traveling from BC through western Canada without incident. The only thing that set them apart from ordinary Canadians is that they are visibly native. How would the RCMP (who overstepped their jurisdiction according to the OPP) identify this group except by their looks.

Ya genocide policies are still intact in Canada. Only our government has hidden them behind a greater bureaucracy and behind laws that still marginalize native people.

You want links and numbers I suggest that you start looking now. And along the way you are going to find not only all of the things I have discovered about what our government and society is still doing to native people, but you'll also find what the government is doing to us and we haven't even batted an eye.