Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Authorities racist in Caledonia?


Recommended Posts

The people of Caledonia have been well compensated for any inconvenience.

The land they squat on, however, has never been paid for.

How can you compensate people who were afraid for their lives? How can you compensate victims of violence?

How was Sam Gualtieri compensated? He now lives with permanent, disabling brain injuries.

Yeah, just slip them a few bucks and it'll be fine!

Once again, the CONSEQUENCES of your suggestions show a streak of cruelty. Frankly, I'm not sure if that was your intent or if you simply never think things through past the obvious.

Me, I care about people REGARDLESS of their race! Fortunately, there are no accounts of natives receiving such injuries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should ask them, again officially, to leave.

If they say no, we should tell them to leave, the feds that is.

If they say no, we should ask why not.

If the answer is - as it has been - that they are a separate nation from Canada - than we should send in the army, guns blazing, and annex their ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should ask them, again officially, to leave.

If they say no, we should tell them to leave, the feds that is.

If they say no, we should ask why not.

If the answer is - as it has been - that they are a separate nation from Canada - than we should send in the army, guns blazing, and annex their ass.

It would be simpler to cut off the flow of money and electricity into the reserve. They have not been self-sufficient for generations.

You are either within Canada or not. No one should be allowed to play both ends against the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think watching paint dry is all the initiative you could ever muster. YOU see a protest means that their is an issue being protested. That's it.It would and could not be labelled a protest otherwise - your point is nonsensical. Land was and still is the issue being fought hundreds of years to now of the SAME protest still being neglected. As for the chap that was beaten - senseless, It was a shame but I feel certain it was not for nothing. Further, think of the violence and the thousands upon thousands of lives you people stole as well as the lands inherent to Canada.You point out the victimization of one man. I point out the victimization of thousands of children = taken away and abused at residential schools to have their culture forceably removed in order for you to steal the lands. The last school closed in 1996. For many, this is not a long time ago. You hark on about recent events. Nothing is recent.

No, the issue is whether the rule of law should apply to natives as well as whites. Pursuimng a land claim does not entitle the natives (or welfare bandits as they really are) to ignore the criminal law and heap much physical and other abuse on whites and not be accountable. I am appalled that the Ontario government allowed it to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

The people of Caledonia have been well compensated for any inconvenience.

The land they squat on, however, has never been paid for.

Land was paid for twice, actually. The British purchased it from the Ojibway and then gave it to Six Nations, who subsequently sold most of it to the pioneers. If you don't think that the purchase of land from Six Nations was legitimate, then neither was the origonal purchase of land from the Ojibway. Since Six Nations are not "natives" of the Grand River Valley, they too are squaters and therefore have absolutely no claim to the land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Land was paid for twice, actually. The British purchased it from the Ojibway and then gave it to Six Nations, who subsequently sold most of it to the pioneers. If you don't think that the purchase of land from Six Nations was legitimate, then neither was the origonal purchase of land from the Ojibway. Since Six Nations are not "natives" of the Grand River Valley, they too are squaters and therefore have absolutely no claim to the land.

The land titles registry shows no land transfers from Six Nations to settlers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Canadian law" says Six Nations should have been consulted before and development was ever planned for that land. The Supreme Court case law was clear about that. The lack of appropriate local policy does not excuse them from the law.

The racism is centuries old in that area but only infects some who still want to pretend that sovereignty and land rights were somehow taken away from Six Nations, and usually those who wish to make a profit off the land in some way, without any benefit to Six Nations.

The only people not welcome on the site are those who have shown ill intent in the past: Race has nothing to do with it. There's a lot of BS and some very serious blatant lies in Blatchford's book. She swallowed the racist propaganda whole, without verifying her 'sources' or the law. When confronted, she retreated and her 'book tour' was ended by her publisher. The Globe and Mail dropped her after it was published. She's now more appropriately back at the National Post.

The ones who have failed are those who keep trying to fan the flames of racism to serve their own ends and for personal gain. Charges have been laid, sentences have been served, compensation has been paid to affected residents. There's nothing to be gained from this negative approach you espouse, spider, and thankfully it wasn't much in evidence on Sat. Instead, I saw interested people on the streets, still afraid to openly support Six Nations but friendly nonetheless.

What remains now, as always, is for the federal government to acknowledge its liability and negotiate resolutions, but they continue to refuse.

The march was intended to draw national attention to the fact that the feds are still absent from any discussions and have displayed no 'good faith' intentions.

Personally, I don't believe they ever had any intentions of settlement, but they

sure spent a lot of our tax dollars on high-priced 'negotiators' for appearances only.

It's in the interest of everyone to resolve the issues, and I think both communities prefer that. It would be nice if the government would cooperate, but ...

At least it was a nice day, a peaceful march and it's to be hoped a step toward better local relations.

The site itself could be a wonderful educational site, with the village that stood there rebuilt. As a key location for the fur trade, it dates to before settlement and an era not well known. It's possible that the provincial government could pursue this without the feds, with some public support.

The land was bought from the government. Everything conventionally necessary to give clear title to the land was done, including having an archeologist/anthropologist clear it. The Six Nations Council passed on it. The bank cleared it before they authorized the loan. The various courts have made a mess of land claims. The protesters think that Canadian law doesn't apply to them because they have sovereignty.

In fact, there was no claim on the land registered until well after the protests started. It never was a land claim dispute.

When the developer went to the insurance company to get a settlement, they refused to pay because they claimed the problem was a civil insurrection, which they didn't cover. That's when the McGuinty gang spend an undisclosed amount of public money to buy the land from the developer, and to get the bank's money back to them. And God knows what else was thrown in the pot to pacify the natives. Only David Peterson knows for sure.

It is a provincial responsibility. The province has to invite the Federal Government into the situation, but they preferred not to do it, at least partly because they were persuing a vendetta against Mike Harris, springing from Ipperwash.

The protesters want to make the site into a casino, which, as you know, is a racial entitlement in Ontario -- or the next thing to it. I don't know how you can say it isn't racial on the native side. It suggests to me that you don't really know anything about it.

In any case, if the Courts were doing their job, they'd know that the Iroquois do not have aboriginal right to the land because they immigrated to Canada after the American Revolution. But you're right about them -- the courts are racists. They don't acknowledge these legally relevant statuses due to the skin of the protesters.

Edited by Bugs
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's very little truth in your post.

There was no proper consultation prior to proceeding with development. That's a provincial responsibility in this case, and it wasn't done.

The relevant law from the Supreme Court had been in place for some time, but governments ignored it up until Six Nations confronted it.

Now it's becoming standard practice.

Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites

The land titles registry shows no land transfers from Six Nations to settlers.

The transfer of land by Six Nations is documented well enough. Just because you can't find it or don't want to accept that it exists doesn't mean that it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it. Show me one legitimate source that claims that there is no documentation whatsoever that Indians transfered land to settlers.

That's not the way proof works. If it's in the land registry, show that it's in the land registry. By doing nothing, jacee is already demonstrating that its not there.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

The documents are, among other sources, reprinted here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=HQgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Six+Nations+land+transfers&source=bl&ots=sDzWVuL_JK&sig=F_gi3qI5bMYO7yzKkz_C4jDjQ8A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nCp3Ue__BKTZ2wXmqYCoCA&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgo#v=onepage&q=Six%20Nations%20land%20transfers&f=false

Once you've read the book and are willing to discuss this issue based on facts then I'm willing to see what you have to say. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your trolling twaddle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The documents are, among other sources, reprinted here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=HQgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Six+Nations+land+transfers&source=bl&ots=sDzWVuL_JK&sig=F_gi3qI5bMYO7yzKkz_C4jDjQ8A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nCp3Ue__BKTZ2wXmqYCoCA&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgo#v=onepage&q=Six%20Nations%20land%20transfers&f=false

Once you've read the book and are willing to discuss this issue based on facts then I'm willing to see what you have to say. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your trolling twaddle.

Neither you nor I are qualified to legally interpret such documents. I'll stand by the courts' interpretations - the Case law that has evolved from those documents and others.

If the courts say the land was legally transferred, wouldn't the transfers from Six Nations be recorded in the land registry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i believe that you will not - you will only accept the interpretations that support your theories on how things should be. If the law sides with SN, then you'll consider it 100% legitimate, if it doesn't, then the law is unjustice and you'll keep whining and complaining.

I've already shown you that the documents exist and have been reprinted for all to read. If you don't think you're "qualified to legally interpret" them, then what gives you the authority to question their legitimacy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i believe that you will not - you will only accept the interpretations that support your theories on how things should be. If the law sides with SN, then you'll consider it 100% legitimate, if it doesn't, then the law is unjustice and you'll keep whining and complaining.

Do you now! :lol: And your uninformed and false speculations are supposed to be of interest to me ... why?

I'd watch the personal attacks if I were you. Against forum rules, ya know.

I've already shown you that the documents exist and have been reprinted for all to read. If you don't think you're "qualified to legally interpret" them, then what gives you the authority to question their legitimacy?

That's the way it works in our society. Legal documents are interpreted and applied by the courts. Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing I said is a personal attack.

Telling someone they're whining when they're trying to have a legitimate discussion about the issue is a personal attack. It doesn't address her argument, but criticizes her character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling someone they're whining when they're trying to have a legitimate discussion about the issue is a personal attack. It doesn't address her argument, but criticizes her character.

What argument? She is absolutely not trying to have a "legitimate discussion" about this when she makes absurd statements that demonstrate no understanding of property law. Now, do you have anything substantive to add to the issue of the existence of documents showing that Six Nations surrendered much of the land that was given to them by the British?

Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...