Caledonia

[jbg]

In legal terms, the SCoC does not make any errors in interpretation. They confirm the law and have the final say.

So, to borry a US example, you'd say tha tthe US SCT was right in decreeing that blacks and whites had to exist in "separate but equal" conditions in the 1896 decision Plessy v. Fergeson? Surely yoiu don't mean that Supreme Courts have the Pope's "infallible powers"?

Still in those cases you state the courts accepted oral history as a form of evidence. The SCoC hasn't ruled an open season on oral history but has set out a number of rigorous tests it must pass before being accepted. That would be similar to the tests that are required for written evidence to be submitted. I mean one does not accept hand scratched notes written months after an event as substantial proof. Neither does it accept that agreements written by the British after they have come to oral terms with people who couldn't read holds much weight either and it is incumbent on the courts to fully certify agreement documents were fully understood by both parties.

But like I said your opinions are worthless in comparison to what the "Rule of Law" actually is.

How does one cross-examine a long-dead shaman? As far as written notes, what matters is not if they're "hand-scratched" but if they're signed by the party to be charged with complying with the agreement.

[Posit]

So, to borry a US example, you'd say tha tthe US SCT was right in decreeing that blacks and whites had to exist in "separate but equal" conditions in the 1896 decision Plessy v. Fergeson? Surely yoiu don't mean that Supreme Courts have the Pope's "infallible powers"?

How does one cross-examine a long-dead shaman? As far as written notes, what matters is not if they're "hand-scratched" but if they're signed by the party to be charged with complying with the agreement.

How does one cross-examine a long-dead shaman?

First of all to correct your ignorance natives didn't have "shaman". That is pretty much a Russian aboriginal construct. And secondly, the "medicine people" who understood the workings of nature and applied them were not people who kept historical facts. And thirdly, Iroquois people had specialized people who were taught and in turn taught others the significant historical information. So you could ask the descendants of those people who were taught from a long line of generations of historians. As well to better understand how native history is preserved and recalled you would have to abandon the "history is dead" paradign we westerns hold so dear. Instead, history to Iroquois is a living entity, as much of the present as is the past. I realize that last order is beyond your capabilities but I am grateful that our learned judges have the intelligence and capacity to understand how it all works have applied it in their interpretations of law.

As well to correct another of your misconceptions, the "Rule of Law" is not static. It evolves as were evolve as human beings. And as the power of law-making is ripped from the grasp of the mainly colonial Anglo-saxon Christian male,we find all kinds of changes occurring such as a move away from religion as supremacy in law, or recognition that women, gays and lesbians have as much right to choose their ideas of freedom without interference from old church marms. And that race - that construct so many here hold on to so dearly, is not a basis for discrimination. Law is dynamic and its interpretation is guided not only by previous interpretations, but by our ability to expand our thinking beyond xenophobic or emotional responses to events. That is why an open mind is necessary to be a Supreme Court Judge and not some political hack sent in to support the narrow-minded cadre who can't and won't evolve with the rest of us.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah JBG...posit, among other things, is an expert in law and agricultural soil replenishment.

[Riverwind]

As well to correct another of your misconceptions, the "Rule of Law" is not static. It evolves as were evolve as human beings. ... And that race - that construct so many here hold on to so dearly, is not a basis for discrimination.

Which is pretty much the point I have been making all along. There is no absolute 'rule of law' that applies at all times to all people. The SCC basically makes law up as it goes a long and its decisions are governed more by what it perceives to be social norm than legal precedent. In the past 15 years or so the court has been excessively broad when it comes to interpreting aboriginal rights but that does not mean it will always be the case. Canada is becoming less and less white every day and the aboriginals are going to find it harder to hitch a free ride on the 'white guilt' band wagon.

So your ranting about the respecting the 'rule of law' rings hollow because I don't believe you would ever accept any 'rule of law' that did not support your enthnocentric view of the world. Your support for the lawlessness in Caledonia pretty much proves that point.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

Which is pretty much the point I have been making all along. There is no absolute 'rule of law' that applies at all times to all people. The SCC basically makes law up as it goes a long and its decisions are governed more by what it perceives to be social norm than legal precedent. In the past 15 years or so the court has been excessively broad when it comes to interpreting aboriginal rights but that does not mean it will always be the case. Canada is becoming less and less white every day and the aboriginals are going to find it harder to hitch a free ride on the 'white guilt' band wagon.

So your ranting about the respecting the 'rule of law' rings hollow because I don't believe you would ever accept any 'rule of law' that did not support your enthnocentric view of the world. Your support for the lawlessness in Caledonia pretty much proves that point.

You missed the point entirely. The "Rule of Law" does not regress. It evolves and it does not consider the emotional or political will of Canadians. Rather as one legal concept is understood it is applied tomore and more cases.

I fully accept the "Rule of law". Haven't you noted my emphasis all along? Yet the "Rule of Law" says that the government is WRONG in advancing development on lands native have an interest in without consulting them and accommodating their concerns. Do you support the government complying with the "Rule of Law" and prescribing that all citizens tow the line equally, Riverwind - even if it means losing control over certain lands? Simple question where a yes or no answer will suffice.

[Rue]

The word "niggardly" has no connection to "nigger" from what I understand.

No not at all. Just like the word Niger is not latin for black where the word "nigger"and "niggardly" originate. Thanks for that clarification. Should I consider it a "white"lie?

[Rue]

Sorry Rue, I fail to see any racism in the preceding statement. What I see is a guy who is saying that if you go to a University you will find a plethora of information relating to the subject, however it may be pretty technical.

So where is the racism in that, he's 100% correct, you will find lots of information and, yes, it will be technical. How you extrapolate racism from that I have no idea.

" If you go to a university..."

You want to play coy with me? Come on let's play. Your comment was deliberately elitist and insulting as you assume university is the place to acquire truth and the shot is at aboriginals because they don't in your opinion to to universities because they aren't "technical" enough which is your passive aggressive way of saying "smart" enough.

You know what is even more pathetic then someone who taunts aboriginals because they don't get their truth from universities-people like you thinking university provides the truth.

Ah but don't tell me you are university educated...

[M.Dancer]

No not at all. Just like the word Niger is not latin for black where the word "nigger"and "niggardly" originate. Thanks for that clarification. Should I consider it a "white"lie?

How embarrassing!

The one problem with too much of an open mind is any damn thought can fly in no matter how worthless it is.

The root of the word niggard is scandenavian and it mean miser. No need to trhank me, thank the people who taught me english.

Controversies about the word "niggardly" have occurred on a number of occasions in the United States due to the phonetic similarity of the word (an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly") to the racial slur "nigger", though the two words are unrelated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies...%22niggardly%22

“Niggard” is a very old word in English meaning “miser” or “stingy person.” Americans often mistakenly assume it is a variant on the most common insulting term for “African-American.” You may embarrass yourself by attacking a writer for racism when you see it in print; but since so many people are confused about this it might be better to use “miser” and “stingy” instead of “niggard” and “niggardly.”

http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/niggard.html

nig·gard /ˈnɪgərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nig-erd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. an excessively parsimonious, miserly, or stingy person.

–adjective 2. niggardly; miserly; stingy.

[Origin: 1325–75; ME nyggard, equiv. to nig niggard (< Scand; cf. dial. Sw nygg; akin to OE hnéaw stingy) + -ard]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggard

No Niggard

Monday, Jun. 21, 1926 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereAddThisRSS His Highness Aga Sultan Sir Mohammed Shah, the Aga Khan III, offered £100,000 last week to Sir John Rutherford for his colt Solario —was refused.

The highest price ever actually paid for a race horse was $265,000, for which sum August Belmont parted with Tracery to Señor Unzue. Though Sir John Rutherford paid only £5,000 for Solario, he may well reap £30,000 a year by offering him at stud.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,722079,00.html

LMAO

[Rue]

I would bet on that, and trust me, I have never welched on a bet, and if I ever do, haul me away on a paddy wagon. Mind you, before the ol bill comes to take me away, they would be best to summon up some dutch courage or better yet, take french leave.....naw...I'm just joshin....try to take the mikey out on ya....

If you mean do I understand the word nygart was used in the English as early as 1366 yes thanks I know. I just love the English and their words. AmI aware it probably originated with the Sandivanian word hnøggr, yes.

What I also know and the point you miss is while you can claim all you want that its origins used to connotate stinginess are innocent the word "nigger" is not and so using the word "niggardly" because it has the word "nigger"in it, would not to you be considered racist, but sure as hell would to a black person. That was my point. That is precisely why I said to another poster that perhaps until you put yourself in the shoes of the person feeling the pain of the word,you will never understand it. Of course that point was missed. The other person like you seems unable to wear anything but one pair of shoes-oopsy are they black oxfords?

Edited September 25, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

How embarrassing!

LMAO

Giggle giggle. The origins of the word do not make it any less hateful nor mean it did not become intermixed with the negative conotations of the word "nigger" which comes from the latin word niger. The fact you can't understand that then laugh out loud about it is embarassing. You not only demonstrate an inability to grasp such a simple concept of sensitivity, but then you giggle about it.

Hee hee I am better then you. Hee hee. On and on it goes. From where I stand it looks even tinier then the last time you flashed it.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Rue

[M.Dancer]

If you mean do I understand the word nygart was used in the English as early as 1366 yes thanks I know. I just love the English and their words. AmI aware it probably originated with the Sandivanian word hnøggr, yes.

What I also know and the point you miss is while you can claim all you want that its origins used to connotate stinginess are innocent the word "nigger" is not and so using the word "niggardly" because it has the word "nigger"in it, would not to you be considered racist, but sure as hell would to a black person. That was my point. That is precisely why I said to another poster that perhaps until you put yourself in the shoes of the person feeling the pain of the word,you will never understand it. Of course that point was missed. The other person like you seems unable to wear anything but one pair of shoes-oopsy are they black oxfords?

So earlier you claimed that we can't hold mohawk warriors to our standards of morallity, now you claim blacks are too stupid to know english?

Next you will be telling my I can't have juice......or stick a finger in a dyke.....

[M.Dancer]

No not at all. Just like the word Niger is not latin for black where the word "nigger"and "niggardly" originate. Thanks for that clarification. Should I consider it a "white"lie?

If you mean do I understand the word nygart was used in the English as early as 1366 yes thanks I know. I just love the English and their words. AmI aware it probably originated with the Sandivanian word hnøggr, yes.

Interesting . How stories evolve..........

But what does Niger have to do with all of this I don't know. It's just a poor landlocked country.........just because the river it was named after means black in latin......LMAO

[Riverwind]

You missed the point entirely. The "Rule of Law" does not regress. It evolves and it does not consider the emotional or political will of Canadians. Rather as one legal concept is understood it is applied to more and more cases.

What you call 'regression' others would call 'progression'. There are many different legal concepts at place and the court must decide how to weigh them. The weight the court places on the different concepts depends on the prejudices and biases of the judges making the ruling. The statute of limitations, the doctrine of latches and adverse possession are all long standing legal principals which a court could choose to apply to this case. Furthermore, the court could easily decide that the Six Nations oral history has been compromised and place more weight on the written evidence saying that the lands had been surrendered.

No one will really know what the court will say until it hears the case. This is probably the legal advice that Six Nations received which is why it is resorting to violence and extortion instead of simply waiting for the court ruling.

Yet the "Rule of Law" says that the government is WRONG in advancing development on lands native have an interest in without consulting them and accommodating their concerns.

Six Nation's interest in the land in question has not been established legally. The government says the land has been surrendered therefore it has no duty to consult and it also has documentation to back this up for most of the land in question. If Six Nations disagrees it can go to court and ask for an injunction. Six Nations has not done this which demonstrates it has nothing but contempt for the "Rule of Law". Your defense of these actions demonstrates that you are only interested in the "Rule of Law" when it is convenient for you.

Do you support the government complying with the "Rule of Law" and prescribing that all citizens tow the line equally

I have said these kinds of decisions are political and the needs of different groups must be balanced against each other. Even if the Six Nations case is legally sound that does not automatically entitle it to the complete return of the lands. I have also said that arguing the 'rule of law' is a waste of time since the majority has the power to change the law if necessary and that any one sided court ruling that imposes excessive sacrifices on one group to correct an injustice done to another should be overridden by new laws.

Indicidently, I would expect the court and the government to act in this way no matter who is on each side of the argument. So I do feel the that the law should apply equally to all citizens.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

What I also know and the point you miss is while you can claim all you want that its origins used to connotate stinginess are innocent the word "nigger" is not and so using the word "niggardly" because it has the word "nigger"in it, would not to you be considered racist, but sure as hell would to a black person.

What none-sense. The word nigardly has absolutely nothing to do with the word nigger. You can make up theoretical instances till the cows come home and it still will not change the meaning of the word. Just because you choose to misinterpret the meaning of the word does not actually change its meaning. Prey tell exactly where the word "nigard" or "Nigardly" is contained in the word "Nigger", or vice-versa, it is not from what I can see.

Sometimes you do post very good points, that can not be denied. Other times however I think you may just post rationalizations in order to attempt to prove a point.

[Posit]

What you call 'regression' others would call 'progression'. There are many different legal concepts at place and the court must decide how to weigh them. The weight the court places on the different concepts depends on the prejudices and biases of the judges making the ruling. The statute of limitations, the doctrine of latches and adverse possession are all long standing legal principals which a court could choose to apply to this case. Furthermore, the court could easily decide that the Six Nations oral history has been compromised and place more weight on the written evidence saying that the lands had been surrendered.

No one will really know what the court will say until it hears the case. This is probably the legal advice that Six Nations received which is why it is resorting to violence and extortion instead of simply waiting for the court ruling.

Six Nation's interest in the land in question has not been established legally. The government says the land has been surrendered therefore it has no duty to consult and it also has documentation to back this up for most of the land in question. If Six Nations disagrees it can go to court and ask for an injunction. Six Nations has not done this which demonstrates it has nothing but contempt for the "Rule of Law". Your defense of these actions demonstrates that you are only interested in the "Rule of Law" when it is convenient for you.

I have said these kinds of decisions are political and the needs of different groups must be balanced against each other. Even if the Six Nations case is legally sound that does not automatically entitle it to the complete return of the lands. I have also said that arguing the 'rule of law' is a waste of time since the majority has the power to change the law if necessary and that any one sided court ruling that imposes excessive sacrifices on one group to correct an injustice done to another should be overridden by new laws.

Indicidently, I would expect the court and the government to act in this way no matter who is on each side of the argument. So I do feel the that the law should apply equally to all citizens.

I see that as a "no". It is what I expected of you because you can't give up your power in favour of allowing the "Rule of Law" to apply equally. You're just another in a long line of Canadian hypocrites, I guess....

[Riverwind]

I see that as a "no". It is what I expected of you because you can't give up your power in favour of allowing the "Rule of Law" to apply equally. You're just another in a long line of Canadian hypocrites, I guess....

Evading the point I see. It is not about giving up power it is about balancing the rights of different people in society. The land that Six Nations claims belongs to someone else now. Therefore any attempt to give it to Six Nations would create an injustice because the person who owns it now is not responsible for any wrong. In small claims the government could afford to pay these people fair market value for their land and give it to Six Nations (that is what will happen with the Douglas Creek Estates). Unfortunately, the Six Nations claim is too big and would take money needed for things like health care and education. None of the tax payers that would pay that bill were responsible for the the wrong that may have occurred 150 years ago so demanding that they pay such an enormous bill is another injustice.

Any human being with any concept of empathy would understand the need to balance the needs of different groups and would understand that two wrongs don't make a right. Unfortunately, you are clearly a self absorbed person that has no empathy for people outside of your ethnic group. That is why you blather on about the 'rule of law' applying equally to everyone instead of acknowledging that this is a very complex problem that will require give and take on both sides.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[guyser]

The land that Six Nations claims belongs to someone else now. Therefore any attempt to give it to Six Nations would create an injustice because the person who owns it now is not responsible for any wrong. .

With all due respect, buy a stolen car , only to have the true owner find it.

You are now out of a car....and the money you paid for it. And through it all , IYOW, the person who owns it now is not responsible for any wrong.

Sucks but true.

[kengs333]

With all due respect, buy a stolen car , only to have the true owner find it.

You are now out of a car....and the money you paid for it. And through it all , IYOW, the person who owns it now is not responsible for any wrong.

Sucks but true.

This is a lot more than a stolen car. Besides, the proper analogy would be that you bought a used car from someone who was given that used car for free. Forty years later when the car becomes a classic and the owner refurbishes it, the previous owner claims to have been ripped off and wants the car back and 50x what you paid him for it.

Edited September 26, 2007 by kengs333

[jefferiah]

"niggardly" because it has the word "nigger"in it, would not to you be considered racist, but sure as hell would to a black person.

Not very observant are you, my Dear Watson. The word "niggardly" has the word "niggar" in it, not "nigger."

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[Riverwind]

You are now out of a car....and the money you paid for it. And through it all , IYOW, the person who owns it now is not responsible for any wrong.

We are not talking about a relatively inexpensive stolen car. We are talking about expensive land. The doctrine of latches and adverse possession are legal concepts that exist because the law recognizes that special rules apply to transactions involving land . These principals demonstrate that, legally speaking, your comparison to stolen cars is meaningless.

More importantly, the laws are supposed to deliver justice. There is no justice in taking land away from people who bought it in good faith or imposing onerous taxes on people who had nothing to do with the wrong. Especially when it is virtually impossible to determine if a wrong really did occur.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[guyser]

We are not talking about a relatively inexpensive stolen car. We are talking about expensive land. The doctrine of latches and adverse possession are legal concepts that exist because the law recognizes that special rules apply to transactions involving land . These principals demonstrate that, legally speaking, your comparison to stolen cars is meaningless.

I grant you it was a simple analogy.

My point is that "if" there are treaties and agreements with respect to the land , then yes any subsequent ownership is in trouble.

As for expense, that does not equate , except to ratchet up the emotions.

[Riverwind]

My point is that "if" there are treaties and agreements with respect to the land , then yes any subsequent ownership is in trouble.

Well that will really depend on how the courts balance the competing rights. Six Nations may argue that the doctrine of latches does not apply, however, the doctrine of latches does exist which means the court has an obligation to consider the competing interests before it issues an order to transfer land back to Six Nations. In other words, a court could accept that the land was illegally transferred but still toss out the claim because of the doctrine of latches or adverse possesion.

So it is simply wrong to say that if the land was illegally taken from Six Nations then it *must* be returned. The correct answer from a legal perspective is *it depends* and the costs to innocent individuals and taxpayers are reasonable things for a judge to consider before making a ruling.

You might think that raising the cost issue is inflammatory but the cost issue is why we are having this discussion today. If it was possible to settle outstanding claims without imposing an onerous burden on innocent taxpayers then the government would have settled by now. The government looks for every angle to limit claims because it knows that transferring trillions of dollars to an ethnic minority would trigger a widespread revolt amoung the voters. Most of the urbanites who support 'settling treaties' simply do not understand the costs involved and would likely change their mind in a flash if it looked like settling claims was going to cost them personally.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[guyser]

So it is simply wrong to say that if the land was illegally taken from Six Nations then it *must* be returned. The correct answer from a legal perspective is *it depends* and the costs to innocent individuals and taxpayers are reasonable things for a judge to consider before making a ruling.

Cant argue with you on that. Thus the words "with all due respect"

In the end though, it may very well come down to the stolen car analogy. I sincerely hope not , and in the interest of fair play some fair and equitable conclusion can once and for all end this stupid long running battle.

Edit add: I am normally only a reader on this issue as I have not the time nor inclination to find out the nitty gritty of all the claims. What I do know is that our govts have F over all the people of this land. Were it not imcompetence on their part, Oka, Kahnawake(sp?) Caledonia,Dudley George would never had happened. There would be a great highway to Parry Sound instead of a great one almost there then a crappy road then a great highway.(FN wouldnt let it build thru)

Through it all , our gvt has fostered ill will and and racism that will take a long time to get over.

Edited September 26, 2007 by guyser

[Posit]

Well that will really depend on how the courts balance the competing rights. Six Nations may argue that the doctrine of latches does not apply, however, the doctrine of latches does exist which means the court has an obligation to consider the competing interests before it issues an order to transfer land back to Six Nations. In other words, a court could accept that the land was illegally transferred but still toss out the claim because of the doctrine of latches or adverse possesion.

Not only do you not understand that there is no court to be considered but you don't understand the application of the doctrine of latches.....The accepted FACT is that Six Nations protested, complained, argued, filed grievances and made delegations to the Crown over the illegal land sales, the illegal occupations and development of the Haldimand from the very beginning. There is no basis the doctrine of latches because all the conditions have been met to prove that the issues have been on-going since the early 1800's So your trying to argue this point is a non-issue and a red-herring to any legal discussion on the Six Nations' claims.

The lands that mark the Haldimand Tract are the jurisdiction of Six Nations Confederacy - all of them - and they have never capitulated the interest in the Tract. Six Nations is not demanding for all the lands back to a degree that they will displace existing home owners and businesses. There are insisting, however, that undeveloped lands that are unceded be returned to their possession and jurisdiction. While there may a few approved sales in which the Crown and Six Nations agree, much of the undeveloped lands, whether part of the original legal sales or not have the potential to be traded for the illegal lands that have been occupied and are difficult to secure. And so development on those lands must also be stopped until the issues are resolved. For a few legal sales there are thousands more that were never legally, or willfully transferred. That is the issue and that is where negotiations will take us - to a negotiated settlement agreeable to the Crown and the Confederacy

Any costs that are to be levied are the responsibility of the Province and/or the Federal Government, and not Six Nations. Whether a car is stolen or land is stolen, the title must be returned free and clear of any encumbrance. So if the governments need to buy out developers or relocated infrastructure is is totally their responsibility. Another major issue aside from the request for annexes however, is the cost of loss of use of those lands for 180 years forward averaged to today's values, which the government has acknowledged (and under-estimated) at the table.

The government CONTINUES to ignore the "Rule of Law" concerning the Haldimand by consulting and accommodating the Confederacy on ANY development in the tract. The fact that we are at odds with Six Nations is caused by they Provinces failure to uphold the laws of Canada guaranteed under the Constitution.

[noahbody]

For a few legal sales there are thousands more that were never legally, or willfully transferred. That is the issue and that is where negotiations will take us - to a negotiated settlement agreeable to the Crown and the Confederacy

"Thousands more"? Could you be kind enough to reference that claim?