M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 well said posit, and a bit of whiney one at that ... "speaks" is ok ... "reads" ? ... nada! Thank you, please turn the lights out when you leave Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kengs333 Posted October 4, 2007 Author Report Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
jennie Posted October 4, 2007 Report Posted October 4, 2007 That's odd, you assume Joe was there without reason. Well, it is interesting because Jpe has never been clear about whether he was there or not. However, now he says he was there and when Sam "was attacked" he went outside with the nephews. How likely is that? Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
noahbody Posted October 4, 2007 Report Posted October 4, 2007 Well, it is interesting because Jpe has never been clear about whether he was there or not. However, now he says he was there and when Sam "was attacked" he went outside with the nephews. How likely is that? Source please. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 4, 2007 Author Report Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
jbg Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 Haven't you learned already? She makes up 95% of what she writes about this incident.Can't one post a URL to their brain? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jennie Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 Can't one post a URL to their brain? I dunno ... maybe it's a rumour. Stay tuned for court I guess. Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
noahbody Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 quote name='jennie' date='Oct 5 2007, 01:26 AM' post='256418'] I dunno ... maybe it's a rumour. Stay tuned for court I guess. Funny, you stated that like a fact, not rumour. I think that's called dishonesty. Here's the police version as stated in court: During the hearing, Crown prosecutor Shane Hickingbottom provided the first detailed police version of the attack, which has been mired in controversy and conflicting stories from the start.He said the incident started at about 4 p.m. when Gualtieri and three of his workers went to check a house he was building for his daughter and her fiancee. He was concerned because the site had become the subject of a land claims dispute and he had seen a protester hoisting a Six Nations flag by the house earlier in the day. http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/256477 Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 Haven't you learned already? She makes up 95% of what she writes about this incident. I hate to say it but I think she makes stuff up about more than just this incident, for example: And btw in our society "Youth" programs She keeps insisting she isn't Native yet continually refers to such matters in the familiar, as one would if one were a part of the aforementioned group. Sorry Jennie but I just cant muster up any sense of credibility for your statements because of just such instances of duplicity. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
jennie Posted October 6, 2007 Report Posted October 6, 2007 I hate to say it but I think she makes stuff up about more than just this incident, for example:She keeps insisting she isn't Native yet continually refers to such matters in the familiar, as one would if one were a part of the aforementioned group. Sorry Jennie but I just cant muster up any sense of credibility for your statements because of just such instances of duplicity. By "our" I meant both Indigenous and all Canadians, and I gave examples of each. No "duplicity" intended. Why would I bother? Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2007 Author Report Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
kengs333 Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
noahbody Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Boy, this whole situation just gets dumber and dumber. Now these criminals are being coached to say that Canadian law has no jurisdiction over them, because they are supposedly members of sovereign nations... and anyone that is arrested by Canadian police are "prisoners of war"... http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/268153 Does that mean they've declared war on Canada? Quote
kengs333 Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
ScottSA Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 These idiots are so used to being pandered to that they think they can actually reap the benefits of war without the downside of it? I can just see the loud cringing and snivelling about "innocents" if someone lobbed a mortar shell at them the remind them that war is not all peaches, cream, and heroic beer guzzling. Apparently it's been a generation or two since they saw real war. Good grief, if these "warriors" saw one tenth the travails their forefathers did they'd run screaming for the nearest bar. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Boy, this whole situation just gets dumber and dumber. Now these criminals are being coached to say that Canadian law has no jurisdiction over them, because they are supposedly members of sovereign nations... and anyone that is arrested by Canadian police are "prisoners of war"... http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/268153 I'm always confused by this. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 says the FNs are beyond the control of the Queen's governments, but are not sovereign as they fall, like the rest of Canadians, under the sovereignty of the Queen. So, they're wrong to say they're sovereign nations; but, if they can't be governed by the Queen (i.e. by Ottawa or any provincial gov't), how can they be subject to the laws passed by those parliaments? Quote
g_bambino Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 These idiots are so used to being pandered to that they think they can actually reap the benefits of war without the downside of it? I can just see the loud cringing and snivelling about "innocents" if someone lobbed a mortar shell at them the remind them that war is not all peaches, cream, and heroic beer guzzling. But of course; isn't it that essentailly the way with all minority activists? The people they supposedly speak for deserve the "rights" (read: special treatment) to which they're apparently entitled, but need not ever take responsibility or pay any price for them, that's the job of others. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
jennie Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 In general terms, my understanding is that following the relocation of the Five/Six Nations to the Grand River area, the Canadian government was forced to assume responsibility for the affairs of these people. As un-PC as it is, the reality of the fact was that alcoholism was widespread amongst them, and with their lack of education and differing cultural worldview, they were often victims of unscrupulous traders and land speculators. In order to protect these people, the government required that they were subject to the same laws as other Canadians, with some exceptions. This is apparently something that the Six Nations agreed to back in the 19th century. It seems to me that the likely consequences would have been the total loss of their lands and possibly even a complete demise of the Six Nations as an organized group. kengs, You have entirely made this up. It is a complete and utter fabrication. Have you not heard of Joseph Brant? Really kengs, are you a fiction writer? Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
kengs333 Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
kengs333 Posted October 20, 2007 Author Report Posted October 20, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
jbg Posted October 20, 2007 Report Posted October 20, 2007 Does that mean they've declared war on Canada?I was at a school event in upstate New York where the children were entertained by a Native American dancer. He said that he hailed from Quebec's Mohawk Reserve. During his presentation he said that they were still "fighting over some property the Canadian Government is trying to take away". After, I approached him privately to ask if it was "Caledonia". He said "it used to be called Caledonia" and gave me its "current" unpronounceable name. I would call that war, no? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kengs333 Posted October 20, 2007 Author Report Posted October 20, 2007 (edited) ... Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
jennie Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 I was at a school event in upstate New York where the children were entertained by a Native American dancer. He said that he hailed from Quebec's Mohawk Reserve. During his presentation he said that they were still "fighting over some property the Canadian Government is trying to take away". After, I approached him privately to ask if it was "Caledonia". He said "it used to be called Caledonia" and gave me its "current" unpronounceable name. I would call that war, no? As far as they are concerned, Canada already declared war on them at 4:45 am April 20 2006 by invading their territory with 150 OPP who brutally attacked 20 unarmed men, women, elders and youth on Kanonhstaton (Gaw-no-staw-do). Later, with reinforcements from the entire Six Nations community, the women joined arms and walked the OPP off the land, where the OPP have respectfully remained ever since. Kanonhstaton is (formerly, now partially) undeveloped land on the outskirts of Caledonia. Caledonia is part of the land claim. However, they have no interest in turning people out of their homes. It is assumed that the government will substitute money or other land for settled areas, once all claims are resolved. Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Moxie Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 Natives need to understand they have to work within our legal system, not their tribal system. Occupying lands they deem theirs doesn't make it right or legal, I remember when Portage La Prairie was decomissioned the local natives deemed it theirs legally. Was it? No, but they have a habit of trying to take what wasn't theirs regarding Military Land using oral tradition as reasoning. However; no Federal Government beit Liberal or Conservative seem truely interested in dealing with the Native Land Claims with honour and integrity. I had hoped this would change, it appears not. Quote Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy
Recommended Posts
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.