# The Caledonia, Ontario Superthread.



## SHELLDRAKE!! (21 Apr 2006)

> April 21 2006
> Ottawa Sun
> by Geoff Matthews
> 
> ...



If this is a fight about a decision the courts have made, then why is it the police that have to tiptoe around what they do. If I am caught trespassing because I believe the land is mine, can I expect the police to let me start fires on major roads and play pokey chest with the officers?


----------



## karl28 (21 Apr 2006)

I think the police should remove them by force if necessary . The protest  has gone on long enough .


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2006)

When the protests were taking place a number of years ago, the natives were confronted repeatedly. Suddenly violent protests went out of flavour. New crop, new learning curve. 

Governments (both Federal & Prov) have fiddle-fa**ded around with the issues the natives have, but have basically just delayed until someone else can fix it. Maybe, with a more realistic, businesslike approach and some determination the conservative government can make some headway. In the meantime, if necessary, confront them and continue to do so.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (21 Apr 2006)

For every day the government does nothing, other natives bands are seeing that they can get away with unlawfull activity



> Canoe.ca
> 21 April 06
> 
> CALEDONIA, Ont. (CP) - A native standoff over a disputed tract of southwestern Ontario land spawned a sympathy protest Friday that halted at least a dozen CN freight trains and disrupted Via Rail's passenger service in one of Canada's busiest travel corridors.
> ...


----------



## UberCree (21 Apr 2006)

karl28 said:
			
		

> I think the police should remove them by force if necessary . The protest  has gone on long enough .



That would be the worst thing to do, it would galvanize people across Canada to engage in supportive public disorder of whatever kind.  
Cooler heads on BOTH sides need to prevail.  Going in swinging away is just going to make matters worse.  You are taking this personally when it is not.

The reasons First Nations groups (or unions or anti-globalization groups) use protests like this is because they work.  They get public attention where otherwise there would be none.  This had minimal to zero media attention until the police moved in, in that regard it has helped 6 Nations that they did.  
After 1990 there was a huge increase in land claims settlements, which slowly has subsided and now there are over 300 outstanding claims in the system, sitting there stagnating.  First Nations leaders know that if they want to kick start the negotiating process they need to get attention.  Best way to get attention sad to say is through causing a ruckus.  

Different communities take different approaches to settling land claims disputes.  My reserve has won a claim for 54,000 acres in the early 90's because the Indian Agent back in the day also happened to be the mayor of the local town and gave himself someof our land and fudged our membership numbers (we are now at approx 16,000 acres).  Its been almost 15 years and we haven't seen any concrete headway.  My community takes a very collaberative approach to dealing with the federal gov't.  Out east is completely different.  Different history of intereaction.  Different cultural norms.  This will however help other FN's across Canada get their local negotiations kick started.  

Most importantly though, if the police moved in now they would lose out on all the overtime, stand by time, extra benefits etc that they receive in situations like this (remember the RCMP SERT sniper that earned over 150K during the Oka crisis?).  Who wants that!!  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Apr 2006)

Whether a group thinks such an action is effective or not, justified or not, it is illegal.  

If the matter has been duly pursued through the courts and the finding of the court was that the land is legally the developers, then...the land is legally the developers.  Has the 6 Nations appealed the court's findings?  That would seem to me to be the proper method of addressing the situation in a law-abiding nation.  Say what you will, but I do not think that such illegal activity is to be condoned, for any group of Canadian society.  No group is given a waiver to conduct criminal acts to support a cause.  Resorting to violence where civilized tools exist in society is not appropriate.  

Furthermore, you couldn't possbily be trying to cast a positive light on this action by pointing out that police officers would be making more money due to the requirement to pay them overtime, are you?  The logic justifying this action that I'm following then is that many claims across the country have been outstanding for many years/decades and that the police will be earning more due to the overtime.  Je ne le comprends pas! ???

Duey


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Apr 2006)

> That would be the worst thing to do, it would galvanize people across Canada to engage in supportive public disorder of whatever kind.



Apparently you are against the police doing their job. : The natives are engaged in criminal activities and infringing on the "rights" of the people who already live there, but that's okay in your books! :


----------



## Centurian1985 (21 Apr 2006)

I have to side with uber-cree here;

If a group of people believe strongly enough in something, then they have the right to demonstrate and face the court case afterwards during which they can plead their case.  Many groups deliberately violate the law in order to get their cases presented in this manner.  

However, I do not believe any group has the right to burn buildings, destroy property, and attack others like you see in a lot of countries worldwide.  But it does include the right to set up blockades and attract attention as long as they do not interfere with police called in to disperse such activities and restore order.      

This concept has been used by our society for the past hundred years and is the reason why a lot of our laws get changed.  It includes a lot of our early union activities - years ago any union activity was illegal, and only became legal through continued confrontation by union workers and 'breaking the law'.  The black communities in the southern US gained their rights as citizens only through 'repeated violations of laws'; women gained the right to vote only by 'consistently breaking laws' that denied them equal rights.  Mandela used this concept in South Africa to overthrow an apartheid government.  Ghandi used this concept to gain independance from the UK.  This is how Poland gained its independence from a repressive communist system.  This is how Serbia removed Milosevic from power, when the population took to the streets and said enough is enough!

Public demonstration is a tool that can be used for benevolent goals in all societies, but unfortunately can also be used as a tool to defeat societal freedoms.  The hard part is figuring our where the line is drawn.  I see nothing wrong with a small protest that does not threaten human life, only blocking a few railcars from being delivered (this is defined as civil disobediance). However, if the protesters are carrying weapons or threatening to injure police officers for stopping the protest (criminal acts), THEN its time to apply stern measures! 

(Now here come the irate comments that are bound to follow this idea...  :argument:   )


----------



## monika (21 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I see nothing wrong with a small protest that does not threaten human life, only blocking a few railcars from being delivered (this is defined as civil disobedience). However, if the protesters are carrying weapons or threatening to injure police officers for stopping the protest (criminal acts), THEN its time to apply stern measures!



I consider arson along one of the nation's busiest rail stretches to be more than civil disobedience. They are not merely blocking a few railcars from moving - they are pissing off the wrong people, the travellers who have no say in the situation. The time for stern measures is now, before people all over the province start doing more of the same. If this is allowed to continue, what next? Having bonfires at the Pickering GO on Monday rush hour?


----------



## QV (21 Apr 2006)

Peaceful demonstrations are fine.  But destroying property, carrying weapons dangerous to the public peace (like pick axe handles), resisting the enforcement of court orders and blockading other people and businesses from continuing their day to day business is way over the line.  They are not peaceful, they are breaking several laws, infringing on other people's rights, and they are bordering on the definition of a riot.  In my opinion this type of incident needs to be dealt with swiftly and aggressively from the outset, otherwise it will just last weeks and weeks with more damages down the road.  The demonstrators (or rather rioters) should learn to use the proper processes set out to deal with their grievances - court and appeals if necessary.


----------



## Marauder (21 Apr 2006)

The irony of course, is what occurs after the illegal actions are taken. Like the George family bitching, whining, and moaning for a public inquiry about the actions of the OPP and government of the day in regards to dealing with their family member who was one of many undertaking in an illegal occupation of public land. In that situation, it was apparently expected by the George family that their own blood's illegal action was okily-doakily, but the ramifications of what occured BECAUSE of that illegal action was the true wrong. It's unfortunate that events took the course they did, but if Dudley George had not chosen to break the law and aid others in doing so in the first place, he would (likely) still be alive today to enjoy that provincial park, that exists for ALL of the public to enjoy. I can just see the first law suits going out now from the female "protestor" who was "beaten" by 5 OPP officers. The law to these people only works one way... the way that they feel ought to benefit them.

I think that to discourage this jackassery and blatant disregard for the law and the "neighbours" they are supposed to coexist with, new measures need to be taken. If any band chief goes on record as supporting illegal action, then revoke that band's status and resultant tax write-offs and other Indian Act benefits. So long as the media is there to "watch over" any police or dom op military action, the offenders will be emboldened to break the law in as brazen a manner as they can get away with. Unfortunately, no provincial politican has the spine to say "Enough of this shit" and order the correct action taken. Maybe if these idiot's band mates get the idea that the actions of their red-headed stepchildren are going to affect them, then maybe the bands will start to police their problems "in the family" as it were.


----------



## RossF (21 Apr 2006)

I think the local reserve units from Hamilton should be deployed to assist police with the protest  ;D

One thing is for sure though, taking detours around Hwy 6 to get to parade night can get to be a pain.


----------



## UberCree (21 Apr 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Apparently you are against the police doing their job. : The natives are engaged in criminal activities and infringing on the "rights" of the people who already live there, but that's okay in your books! :



Depends on your definition of them doing their job.  If 'keeping the peace' is their job then restraint is in order.  If kicking ass is their job then go in with billy clubs flying against women and children and see how Canadians react.  Don't forget all those protestors are Canadians too and MANY many canadians sympathise with them.  How much support would that gain the OPP?  

I am in NO way defending the 6 Nations protestors using violence or threats of violence (the ones carrying axe handles should be thrown out).  Absolutely not.  When they do this they cross the line from civil disobedience to thuggery.  I also know the police have a job to do, but that they should do it well, professionally and be well educated about the scenario.  

However when I read people encouraging the police to go in with teargas and billy clubs against peacefull protestors (I acknowledge that I am not on the ground and do not know the full details), it makes me question their motives.  You wouldn't conduct yourself unprofessionally and escalate the situation in Afghanistan or Bosnia, so why do it in Canada?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (21 Apr 2006)

So if the issue is that the courts have deemed this land is not native and in fact belongs to the developers, why arn't the natives building tire fires in front of the courts or in Ottawa? Instead they are illegally occupying land that is not theirs (by court decision) and hurling bags of rocks at the police who are simply the enforcers doing what the courts have ordered.

 I agree that unfortunately their claims havn't been heard until the police moved in and the media showed up but is that the police's fault? Does that give them the right to civil disobedience? It's my opinion that if the police entirely draw back from this and the courts cave in order to avoid "bad press".... We will see native civil lawlesness occur on a widescale.

 Im not too up to date on the process of native land claims but shouldn't there be a complete record by now of all disputed lands? Or is it more of a case of new claims going in as the properties are about to be developed?


----------



## Torlyn (21 Apr 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> However when I read people encouraging the police to go in with teargas and billy clubs against peacefull protestors (I acknowledge that I am not on the ground and do not know the full details), it makes me question their motives.  You wouldn't conduct yourself unprofessionally and escalate the situation in Afghanistan or Bosnia, so why do it in Canada?



I believe you need to rephrase this.  They are NOT peaceful protesters.  They have blocked traffic, lit fires, and by doing so potentially risked the lives of others.  If they were protesting peacefully, they would be marching outside a government building with placards stating their case.  Not disrupting traffic.  Not lighting fires on our public roads.

Civil obedience, when lost, needs to be reinforced.  The police should have moved in immediately, and removed those perpetrating crimes.  They have arrested 16, yes.  Perhaps it's time to arrest a few more.


----------



## honestyrules (21 Apr 2006)

On this, what hurts my feelings is that if "white" people would use the same means to protest, I think the police would go forward with the "big guns". For the natives, because it's a touchy subject, the cops are a lot more patient and dilligent.

Just my opinion, but can somebody argue against this?


----------



## Cliff (21 Apr 2006)

> Cooler heads on BOTH sides need to prevail.  Going in swinging away is just going to make matters worse.



I agree. 

Cracking heads isn't much of a solution, though some of them probably deserve it


----------



## Long in the tooth (21 Apr 2006)

Why are native claims not being settled?  I know it will cost money, but let's get the bands grievances solved and then we can get down to a "one Canada, one Canadian", all with the same rights.  The way it is now doesn't help anyone.

Yes, I know my Grandfather was an immigrant, but I should have the same rights as ANYONE born here.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Apr 2006)

because if we settled all the land claims, 120% of the province of British Columbia would belong to the natives. No, that's not a typo.


----------



## Long in the tooth (21 Apr 2006)

When I say settlement, I don't mean a blind giveaway.  I do mean compromise and a willingness on both sides to agree to give until it hurts.  Unfortunately, with 600 bands and a like number of treaties to be sorted out, the ones that settle first likely get the worst deal.


----------



## FredDaHead (21 Apr 2006)

delavan said:
			
		

> On this, what hurts my feelings is that if "white" people would use the same means to protest, I think the police would go forward with the "big guns". For the natives, because it's a touchy subject, the cops are a lot more patient and dilligent.
> 
> Just my opinion, but can somebody argue against this?



I definately agree with you on this.

Furthermore, the protest became more than just "peaceful" when protestors physically attacked police who were there to evict them. At least one woman admitted (on national television, no less!) that she had resisted arrest and had kicked a policeman in the chest.

I love how "peaceful" emcompasses anything, up to and including deadly force (not in this case), as long as the people the protestors use violence against are policemen.


----------



## Centurian1985 (21 Apr 2006)

The problem is that there are moderates and extremists on BOTH sides of this issue.  Some native bands wnat to negotiate while other band reps want to play hardball; same on the govt side of the fence, some want to negotiate and others want to ignore the issue.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Apr 2006)

It seems to me that a lawful order was issued by an Ontario Superior Court Judge ordering these persons to leave the site by a specific date or face a specific consequence. 

By failing to do so, according to Canadian law, they are now all in contempt of court (I believe). 

The injunction specifically ordered the OPP to remove the protesters from the site and to fingerprint and photograph anyone who didn't leave after the injunction had been read under the "Indentifcations of Criminals Act". 

Exercising ones rights to civil disobience or peaceful association DOES NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE justify resisting arrest, or MOST ESPECIALLY, assualting officers. 

If it was their intention to exercise their right to civil disobeince and challenge the legality of the injunction, then they should have challenged their arrest and indentification through the courts afterwards, where it would be determined if the order was in fact lawful. 

As of now they are not only in contempt of court, but are interferring with the rights of liberty and security of person of the lawful owners of that land. 

(am I not right, zipperhead?)

In the end, I am forced to wonder whether or not these protesters would be saying the same thing if someone occupied their land and refused to leave even after an injunction was issued.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Apr 2006)

The first thing we have to do is define this as what it is;

Civil disobedience was southern blacks walking instead of taking the bus. This is domestic terrorism.

These "protests" should be broken up with extreme prejudice, and any negotiations frozen for a period of time after the last criminal is dragged away. 

The government negotiating with the aboriginals is the same as negotiating with terrorists. It is validating their acts as effective, legitimate, and lacking in any real consequence. 

In short, they got what they wanted, now it will happen again. I would hazard that if a Mechanised unit with SERT backup had been called as soon as the first fire was lit, every protestor was remanded for 30 days as a threat to local security, and band councils had the cost of their actions garnisheed from their federal allowances, we would see alot less of this sort of thing. 

The aboriginals are in the wrong, the full weight of the available resources, legal, law enforcement and military should be brought to bear, to restore peace and order, and send a message to others who might be so inclined to imitate them.


----------



## QV (22 Apr 2006)

GO!!! - bang on.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Apr 2006)

+ 1


----------



## DiamondDarryl (22 Apr 2006)

This protest is driving me crazy. I live in Hamilton and it is hijacking my quality television every half hour. I think the natives are just pushing the envelope once again. If they believe in this protest then why are they masking their face? Growing up in Saskatchewan i have seen my fair share of native bull#@%$, however I hope this does not end in another "Dudley George" incident.

Giver' OPP


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I will try to keep this short and inflammatory. (too mm's right?)  So let's talk about reality, really.  I don't care to argue the justice of their claim or their actions.  However, I don't know why you guy talk about "extreme prejudice" and crapola like that, when you have to admire these people.  They've been occupying the land for close to two months.  How many of you just heard about it?  Oh, a stand-off, sorry if thats the only thing that grabs your attention.  Are we going to start calling this terrorism now?  Thats jokes, boys.  Good jokes.  Why don't you try thinking about what it would take to get you out there standing behind a pile of burning tires facing an enemy that could wipe you out in an instant?  MMmmm?  Bunch of freaks, don't know nothing, don't respect authority, let's teach'em a lesson.  Still, more balls than you, hombre.  Soldiers more than anybody should know about realpolitick and that nothing gets done unless it has to.  Native Canadians occupy a unique place in Canadian society, just recognize that as a fact, why don't we try fulfilling some of those obligations are ancestors agreed to, you know, the law and honour and stuff.  Those of you who want to treat them like al-Queda should be chained up in a dank basement next to Rosanne Barr.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

I had no part in their social dilemma or existing problems and I refuse to be goaded into taking responsibilty for it. Here's an idea. Why don't we just start fresh, everyone is responsible to themselves to legally make their way in the world. Work hard and savor the rewards. Sit around on your hump, bitching and waiting for a handout and life will pass you by, and don't expect me to give you a second glance on the way through.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Apr 2006)

Guess,

Who's really got the bigger balls? 

The guy who stands there, takes his lumps, and still conducts himself honorably and within the principles of our society?

OR

The guy who lashes out and abuses the rights of others just because he is angry?

*edit* And there are ways to actually affect "realpolitik" without resorting to violence. Take a look at these "third way health reforms" in Alberta. 

You know what I did about them? Well I certainly didn't go burning tyres in front of a hospital.

I signed a petition, called my MLA, sent a letter to Ralph Klein, and took part in the public consultations. Guess what happened when enough of us did this? No more health reforms.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I had no part in making any of the laws that I live by just as I had no part in signing any of the treaties that were signed between British or Canadian authorities and native communities.  Why am I bound by one and not the other?  The treaties had the authority of law and so says the SCC.  

Just angry?  Thats a matter of opinion.  If you decide that these people are just angry then your opinion will not change.  If you come to the conclusion that perhaps they are angry with a reason then maybe your opinion will change.  Let's face it, these communities arent enormous, I am sure the authorities know who are behind those masks.  It wouldn't be that difficult to work it out.   These people put themselves on the line, they didn't attack anything, they only said they weren't going to retreat.  Nobody needs to get hurt, just work it out.  Did the police need to storm Ipperwash?  I mean who really cared about the place and what the F are we using it for know?  So was that a good decision?  Well, no, not really.  Just accept they got you by the short and curlies and negotiate.  If a bunch of crack dealers start burning tires on the QEW then feel free to storm them, shoot them and whatever, but until then, just deal with reality...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> If a bunch of crack dealers start burning tires on the QEW then feel free to storm them, shoot them and whatever, but until then, just deal with reality...



No. By your logic we should treat them the same as your current cause. Wait them out and negotiate. Oh wait, the crackheads are breaking the law though, so it would be ok to shut them down.................just like the others that are breaking the law.



> I mean who really cared about the place and what the F are we using it for know?



Many of us that used it cared about it. We don't use it now because we have given it back. Now it's a ghetto. I guess when you don't work for or pay for something, it really doesn't matter what you do with it. If you want to live in squalor, who am I to deny you your choice.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> they didn't attack anything



I'm sure the officers who went in there to remove them would have something to say about that.



> If a bunch of crack dealers start burning tires on the QEW then feel free to storm them, shoot them and whatever, but until then, just deal with reality...



Oh I see, so if a DIFFERENT group starts breaking the law, then it would be OK to uphold the law, but we should let these people continue because it's understandable in their case.

What the terrorists (heh) are doing is trying the patience of the officers and the Canadian public. It would take a very minimal amount of effort to "remove" these people if there was little concern for being "nice". Rubber bullets and tear gas are very effective if used judiciously.



> I had no part in making any of the laws that I live by just as I had no part in signing any of the treaties that were signed between British or Canadian authorities and native communities.  Why am I bound by one and not the other?  The treaties had the authority of law and so says the SCC.



You're bound by both, but it's not vigilate groups who get to determine what they mean. It's the courts. If these protesters don't see the need to respect decisions when they aren't in their favour, why should I bother to respect them when they aren't in my favour? It that the precendent they want set?


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Inches turn to miles. As a first generation Canadian (my parents being immigrants) I will say that the protestors are very lucky to be in Canada, for they would all be dead by now if it had been in one of many nations in the world. It was only two decades ago that government Deathsqauds and police massacres still happened in my ethic origin of South Africa.

Ignoring court orders, resisting arrest, attacking police officers, using scare tactics, not what one thinks of when thinking of peaceful protests. Restoring law and order is paramount, because each day that they unlawfully remain others will see these actions as apropriate.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

Bingo.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

The law is not this shining beacon of truth and honest and objectivity.  It is dirty and it is biased because it is made by human beings.  So I have no problem with the law and law enforcement officials treating crack dealers and native protestors differently. No problem whatsoever and this spills over to all areas of the law. It is why we have human judges instead of computers or mandatory sentencing.  The circumstances dictate, lets take the situation into account and react accordingly.  This is basic precept of military training and realpolitik.  This is the grown up world where there are no easy answers. 

Tell me again, why you cared about Ipperwash and why you cared so much that it cost a man his life?  Explain to me why that had to happen and why we are so much better off today because it did happen?  

 The courts and respecting decisions.  Ah.  Go and read the decision of the SCC in Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Vanderpeet, then come back and talk.


----------



## QV (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> It wouldn't be that difficult to work it out.   These people put themselves on the line, they didn't attack anything, they only said they weren't going to retreat.  Nobody needs to get hurt, just work it out.  ....



There was a court injunction.  The rioters decided not to follow that ruling and have decided to resist, and it seems like they intend to use (more) violence to do so.  Wooden boards with nails spiked thru, booby traps?  WTF is that?  Do you call that the start or continuation of a peaceful protest?  To me (and most sane people) the spiked boards and booby traps are weapons intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.  A group of people with that on their mind need to be dealt with swiflty.

Oh, and your example of crack dealers on the QEW is plain stupid.  Thats reality.  

People can protest all they want, they just have to obey the damn law when they do.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I really don't think it such as great achievement to compare yourself to Joe Stalin or the racist bastards of South Africa and then claim you are such a great humanitarian.  Being right is not about being a whole bunch better than the bad guys...


----------



## JBP (22 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I had no part in their social dilemma or existing problems and I refuse to be goaded into taking responsibilty for it. Here's an idea. Why don't we just start fresh, everyone is responsible to themselves to legally make their way in the world. Work hard and savor the rewards. Sit around on your hump, bitching and waiting for a handout and life will pass you by, and don't expect me to give you a second glance on the way through.



+1 right here and I'm sure quite a few more!

I'm sick of all the BS from all sides of all of Canada. Everyone wants to be special, Quebec wants to separate, the Natives all want a hunk of land... People want this, people want that, new immigrants want this, old immigrants want that, 2nd and 3rd generation Canadians want this and 4th, 5th and 6th generation wants that!

How about we deal with everything the way we're all suppose and live our lives as Canadians in Canada... Sure, my family are "Italian-American's"... When someone asks me what country I'm from or my ethnic background I don't Italy or Italian! I SAY CANADIAN. 

I believe exactly what is stated above by another Canadian. Everyone in Canada needs to realize thier Canadian and get thier $hit together and grow up! If we cannot act as one Nation, we will fail.

Let's get on with it!


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Yes, crack dealers on the QEW is stupid example.  Thank you, I had not realized that. 

Explain how to protest without breaking the law...  Wait, I know...  an email chain letter.  How about a march?  Oh, maybe you better ask the RCMP if that is okay.  You guys live in a deluded world where you just wallpaper over the badthings..  Its a nice life.


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Justice = Law + Sense

This is not a protest against a genocidal despot, it is an increasingly violent protest based on a fundamentally wrong belief that it is infact their land, when it is simply for held for their use as the government sees fit and has now changed hands legally.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Some people have different realities than others.  Unfortunately we all do not live in the world of privilege and opportunity that Italian immigrants do.  I can think of a few cafes I'd like the OPP to storm before they bother with any first nations protests.   First job, figure out what it means to live in a first nations community.  Second job, tell me why they must live the same way as you do.  Third job, recognize that our government has recognized their special status since Europeans arrived here.  So do we now have the awesome privilege of deciding unilaterally that this no longer applies?  Huh?


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> +1 right here and I'm sure quite a few more!
> 
> I'm sick of all the BS from all sides of all of Canada. Everyone wants to be special, Quebec wants to separate, the Natives all want a hunk of land... People want this, people want that, new immigrants want this, old immigrants want that, 2nd and 3rd generation Canadians want this and 4th, 5th and 6th generation wants that!
> 
> ...



It'd be lovely if you could convince this Native group that, they need to abide by Canadian law and lawful government decisions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

> Tell me again, why you cared about Ipperwash and why you cared so much that it cost a man his life?  Explain to me why that had to happen and why we are so much better off today because it did happen?



Once again your confused as to my concern for something that I had nothing to do with. I simply cared about it because it was a good place for training and we caretakered it. Why Dudley George was shot is being dealt with where it should be, in a court of law. Are we better off? No, we lost the camp and now it's a cesspool not fit for anyone.



> So I have no problem with the law and law enforcement officials treating crack dealers and native protestors differently.



So you don't have a problem with biased application of the law, when it suits you, but when we wish to apply the same standards to your raison d'etre, we're jack booted thugs?

Mister, you just came full circle and talked yourself off your pillar of self righteousness. You just lost whatever credibility you thought you had.

See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Zertz,

Once again, read the law, the government is in a fiduciary position vis a vis First Nations and this means they do not unilaterally decide what happens to the land.  They have the duty to see that the land is used for the benefit of these communities and is divested only with their consent.  And that is the law.


----------



## QV (22 Apr 2006)

Saw on the news earlier that 15 of the 16 people arrested were released with conditions (one condition being to stay away from the protest).  The lawyer for them said on the news that his clients don't recognize the court's jurisdiction.


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Under the Indian Act, the Canadian government decides what is best for reserved land. If the government decides it is best to sell land and give compensation, they have that right.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I am confused.  Nothing to do with, no concern with.  Sorry I don't understand this apathetic, pathetic sheep-like attitude.  I am a part of this country and I think my opinion matters.  So you don't?  See ya, I'll never be ya. 

Great place to train, dude.  Sorry, I believe in living up to one's word and behaving honourably and that trumps having a great place to train.

Application of the law:  the law is meant to be applied appropriately according to the situation.  Yes, I would hold crack dealers to higher standard of accountability than a group of women doing the same thing to protest the right to bare their breasts. I guess you wouldn't...


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Was that in reply to Recceguy's post, or...? *tad confoozled*


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Zertz,

Dude, you're just plain wrong, fella.  You are not even close to being right or having a leg to stand on.  I mean just way off and blind folded in the field of wrong in the middle of the night.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I mean that as in read the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the interpretation of First Nation treaty rights.


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Refresh my memory?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

Yep, your confused all right.

When your opinion and solution is to toss the courts aside and deal with situations illegally, your opinions DON'T matter and you don't belong in this country.



> Sorry, I believe in living up to one's word and behaving honourably



Not according to your stance advocating the breaking of our laws by holding of communities and transportation systems hostage, not to mention the enviromental damage they've caused. Caretakers of the earth : Your wearing your heart on your sleeve and just contradicted yourself again.


----------



## JBP (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> Some people have different realities than others.  Unfortunately we all do not live in the world of privilege and opportunity that Italian immigrants do.  I can think of a few cafes I'd like the OPP to storm before they bother with any first nations protests.   First job, figure out what it means to live in a first nations community.  Second job, tell me why they must live the same way as you do.  Third job, recognize that our government has recognized their special status since Europeans arrived here.  So do we now have the awesome privilege of deciding unilaterally that this no longer applies?  Huh?



The only world of privilege and opportunity that Italian Canadian immigrants have is one they built with thier own bloody hands!!! They came to Canada like many other immigrants back then and worked thier hands until they were bloody stumps in some cases. I could tell you stories from my family members where they didn't even have a place to live when they came over! Also stories where they died working on the job, many actually just so they could feed thier families. They begged for a job on the street and when finally got one, SLEPT IN THE SHOP! It's happened, they built what they now live in/on. 

Many of them built thier own homes. They didn't come here and sit on thier hands and ask for a hand out. I can think of a few cafe's I'd like the OPP to storm also, all the one's controlled by the Italian MOB. I have ties to the First Nations, my grandfather (not by blood but by marriage) is a Metis and he's shown me quite a few things in my day my fellow Canadian. I've been to the reserves, I've met many people. I've played lacross against the First Nations (got my ass kicked too). Does this mean I'm an expert? No. It does show I care for those people enough to have tasted at least in part thier plight. And where did I ever say that natives had to live the same as anyone did? I didn't, the closest I came to any branding or changing of lifestyle was for us all to say we're Canadian. Yeah the government has recognized thier special status, and the natives do have thier special rights which I am fine with. So LET'S GET ON WITH IT like I said before? What's to argue?

Let's just be Canadians.

Warning, this is my opinion and mine only.


----------



## JBP (22 Apr 2006)

Zertz said:
			
		

> It'd be lovely if you could convince this Native group that, they need to abide by Canadian law and lawful government decisions.



I could, if you give my unit the "stand to!" order...  >  We're only 1/2 drive from there...

They should already realize this by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the fact the police already tried to physically remove them once.... They could have done more. What do you want me to do again?


EDIT: ANother funny thing... We have a law that states the "crown" can take our land if they so choose eventually also.. What's it called again? Crown Perogative? No.. Something else... ALong those lines... So we're all in the same boat! If the government decides to throw a highway down into my livingroom, they do it. I can't do anything about it as far as I know so long as the re-imburse me appropriately...


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I shall...  these are some complex decisions but here are some excerpts from Delgamuukw.  Find them here: 

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/cgi-bin/disp.pl/en/pub/1997/vol3/html/1997scr3_1010.html?query=%22sparrow%22&langue=en&selection=&database=en/jug&method=all&retour=/csc-scc/cgi-bin/srch.pl?language=en~~method=all~~database=en%2Fjug~~query=sparrow

good lord, that is long...

This sui generis interest is not equated with fee simple ownership; nor can it be described with reference to traditional property law concepts. It is personal in that it is generally inalienable except to the Crown and, in dealing with this interest, the Crown is subject to a fiduciary obligation to treat the aboriginal peoples fairly. There is reluctance to define more precisely the right of aboriginal peoples to live on their lands as their forefathers had lived.

Constitutionally recognized aboriginal rights are not absolute and may be infringed by the federal and provincial governments if the infringement (1) furthers a compelling and substantial legislative objective and (2) is consistent with the special fiduciary relationship between the Crown and the aboriginal peoples. The development of agriculture, forestry, mining and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, and the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are objectives consistent with this purpose. Three aspects of aboriginal title are relevant to the second part of the test. First, the right to exclusive use and occupation of land is relevant to the degree of scrutiny of the infringing measure or action. Second, the right to choose to what uses land can be put, subject to the ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the ability of the land to sustain future generations of aboriginal peoples, suggests that the fiduciary relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples may be satisfied by the involvement of aboriginal peoples in decisions taken with respect to their lands. There is always a duty of consultation and, in most cases, the duty will be significantly deeper than mere consultation. And third, lands held pursuant to aboriginal title have an inescapable economic component which suggests that compensation is relevant to the question of justification as well. Fair compensation will ordinarily be required when aboriginal title is infringed.

Generally speaking, aboriginal rights may be regulated by the Crown only when such regulation operates to interfere with aboriginal rights pursuant to legitimate Crown objectives which can honourably be justified, without undue interference with such rights. Moreover, when regulating, government must be mindful of the appropriate level of priority which aboriginal rights have over competing, inconsistent activities.

Aboriginal title at common law is protected in its full form by s. 35(1). This conclusion flows from the express language of s. 35(1) itself, which states in full: "[t]he existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed" (emphasis added). On a plain reading of the provision, s. 35(1) did not create aboriginal rights; rather, it accorded constitutional status to those rights which were "existing" in 1982. The provision, at the very least, constitutionalized those rights which aboriginal peoples possessed at common law, since those rights existed at the time s. 35(1) came into force. Since aboriginal title was a common law right whose existence was recognized well before 1982 (e.g., Calder, supra), s. 35(1) has constitutionalized it in its full form.


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Joe,

Use your amazingly level-headedness and gleeful use of emoteicons to convince them? 

<3 I think you've probably got the best position in this thread, heh heh.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Pte joe:  Are you going to tell us about the poor Italo-Canadians?  Gawd, they have had it so tough, what with their bloody hands and all.  Oh, bloody because they were cutting off horses heads and murdering their adversaries...

See how easy it is, Joe...


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Hey, lets not start the 'Your Race Sucks' game, because that game sucks. Lets play Chess instead.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> The courts and respecting decisions.  Ah.  Go and read the decision of the SCC in Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Vanderpeet, then come back and talk.



..... what's the problem? I disagree with them. I still respect them. The government will have to respect them. If they have relevance to this case, the court will hear of it, and consider it.



> Explain how to protest without breaking the law



Well.... in Edmonton:



> (2)Any person desiring to hold a parade or procession within the City of Edmonton shall at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the time they desire to hold the same, make application in writing to the City Manager and in such application shall furnish to the City Manager information with respect to the following, namely:
> 
> (a)	The name and address of the applicant, and if such application is an organization, the names, addresses and occupations of the executive thereof;
> 
> ...



Unless you are illiterate it's actually pretty easy to have a legal protest. 

And guys, let try and keep this on topic.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Well then, you should go protest the decision.  Go start a chain email and see how far you get.  In any case, you disagree with the law, so are you going to support it in any case.  Or are you going to disregard it because you are part of a majority?  Not the world I want to live in.


----------



## JBP (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> Pte joe:  Are you going to tell us about the poor Italo-Canadians?  Gawd, they have had it so tough, what with their bloody hands and all.  Oh, bloody because they were cutting off horses heads and murdering their adversaries...
> 
> See how easy it is, Joe...



No I actually don't.. Because I don't have a flying clue what your talking about?? The only thing that comes to mind is ROME and the ancient Roman empire... Which... Strangely enough  : has no coincidence or relation to anything in this entire thread.... 

Are you a space-cadet? Maybe your just so far above me you lost me with your intelligent rebuttle...

I answered that lad's questions and this is the response you give me? Grow up, come back when you've had a serving of common sense!

I'd almost report that post of yours to the mods for trolling but it doesn't bother me because it's so baseless, pointless and rediculous. 

Enjoy your folly.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Apr 2006)

> Well then, you should go protest the decision.  Go start a chain email and see how far you get.  In any case, you disagree with the law, so are you going to support it in any case.  Or are you going to disregard it because you are part of a majority?  Not the world I want to live in.



What does that have to do with anything?

You scoffed when I said that people should respect the decisions of the court and said go read those decisions. I had heard of those decisions before, but didn't know the names, so ended up wasting 30 minutes reading them rather than you just actually making a point.

.... I am still waiting for a point to be made. Those are decisions in regards to aboriginal rights. IF THEY HAVE AN application in this regard, the six nations can sue citing them... 

That has little to do with engaging in an illegal occupation of land, assaulting officers, and being in contempt of court. 

*edit* R031 Pte Joe is right. Do you have a point or should the mods just lock this thread?


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

I'm unfamiliar with trolling or reporting but I will refrain from putting it in your face to make a point in the future becaue I think I have offended you.  I just don't understand why we can't respect the actions of other for things we would do in their place.  It doesn't justify their conduct, but it should temper the way that we react.  Fact of life:  a bunch of bankrobbers occupying a roadblock of burning tires would be dead by now.  Natives protesting their title to land, No.  Never.  Not in my country.  Because this country is not run by fascists.


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

Please.   Please don't tell me you are familiar with those decisions.  I took the time to go and find those quotes for you because I thought they were relevant.  If you read them, then the time was not wasted. 

Yes, lock down the thread because a different opinion is being expressed.  Help us.

I thought we were grown ups here making serious arguments.  Violence is not for children.  We live in a democracy.  Violence is a last option.  It requires serious justification and responsible application.  When I intervened in this thread I heard neither in the comments being posted.  I would not kid myself that I can change any of your opinions, but I would hope you would at least think about the seriousness consequences of some of your opinions.  The world is not such a simple place as some of you act.  At least, think about the other side of the argument once in a while.

Chrissakes, boys, we're on the same side.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Apr 2006)

Guess, 

I'm not really sure what your opinion on this is.

Your posts range from absolute stupidity;



> ...cutting horses heads off...



to unquatifiable ranting;


> ...you disagree with the law, so are you going to support it in any case



to linking some largely irrelevant legal cases to your posts.

The only point that you have articulated is that you disagree with Natives being bound by Canadian Law, which is a pretty weak point, but whatever.

To get your head around the way many of us feel about this, think of it this way. 

The whole reason all industrialised nations have a "no negotiating with terrorists" policy, is that it fosters more terrorism. This means that we (as a society) do not bargain or deal with people who use force as a method of achieving their goals, with an important caveat being the state, which we grant with a monopoly on the use of force. The state's "force" is manifested in the form of the courts, Law enforcement and on the international (and more rarely) domestic scene, the military.

When Natives choose to forgo the use of the legal system, and resort to force themselves, they place themselves above the law, and their desires as well. This is not acceptable. The whole reason we have peace, order and good (sic) government is that we (as a people) acknowledge that we are all equal under the law - no one gets special treatment and the courts get the final say.

If the Native terrorists are negotiated with, they will have achieved their goals of winning concessions outside the legal system. This will not solve the problem, it will practically guarantee that whenever Natives in any part of the country disagree with a legal ruling, their will be piles of burning tires and blocked highways, and in a worst case scenario, people hurt or killed.

This also sends a message that other crimes, like assaulting police officers and stealing property is acceptable, as long as one is of a minority group, and uses sufficient violence to garner media attention. Perhaps organised Labour or the Gay lobby could take a page from this book.... To quote you "Not the type of country I'd like to live in..."

No, the aggressive suppression of these domestic terrorists will be distasteful at first, but will reap dividends in the future, when we are not forced to endure another Oka or Ipperwash.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Apr 2006)

Wow!  What a thread.  I go in for afternoons, and this cluster pops up!  I can't believe that someone would be arguing for breaking the law so ardently and so poorly.  

First.  Dudley George.  He is dead, because he jumped off a school bus filled with other armed natives with a shot gun and aimed it into a bush line where the OPP TRU team was set up.  George got waxed, a short firefight ensued.  The Provincial govt at the time caved in like a rotten watermelon when they realized that if they accepted the truth about what happened, they would have to admit that there are natives that are heavily armed and willing to shoot at police officers.  Huge implications.  

Next.  In order to enforce the law, you need both lawful right, and political desire.  Natives and other special groups break the law over and over, as do protesters that enjoy vandalism over message delivering.  The law does not change from scene to scene.  What is constant is the lack of political will to do anything about it.  We see here, in this pathetic bit of yellow stripe governing:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/21042006/3/canada-trains-halted-standoff-continues-caledonia.html
*Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was quick to say that his government had in no way influenced the police decision to remove the demonstrators. He said he would take as much time as needed to settle the dispute peacefully.*  Gee Dalton, spit or...?

And of course, the CBC keeps calling them "protesters".  They are no longer "protesters", they are "trespassers" and should be dealt with.
As with Quebec, there is now an entire culture of people who believe that they are owed the world just by the sheer grace of their birth.  What is maddening is that there are so many successful native groups, who never show up on the radar because they don't act like jackasses.  My sister is an OPP patrol officer in Orillia, and she has nothing bad to say about the natives in that area.  
So why can't a group of natives come in and pull these jackasses off of the site if it is so unreasonable for the police to do it?  Because then they will be accused of being "apples" and be shamed.  More important to condone the unlawfulness "in solidarity" than to take action against it.  

Should they be clubbed and gassed.  No.  Simply arrest one at a time, and charge them with anything that applies.  At such time as a riot ensues, apply clubs and gas as needed.  Remember: ARWIN rhymes with OUR WIN.  

To say that no one can protest without breaking the law should be on a top ten list of jackassy things said on this site.  I would agree that nobody seems to WANT to protest without breaking the law, and the media encourages it by not giving enough attention to peaceful protests.  However, once the line is crossed, it is game on.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (22 Apr 2006)

To me it seems pretty clear. There is only one law in Canada and that is Canadian law which applies to all Canadians regardless of race or colour. I think guess is trying to say that there is a seperate law that applies to only natives.

 If society is to follow a set of rules, then how can you have portions of that society act outside those rules without repercussions?

 It is my belief that the only reason the police have not arrested and charged these tresspassers, is because (much like all things military) the average Canadian is led to believe the police are bullies picking on a few grandparents and children peacefully protesting.

 If the media used terms such as tresspassers and provided a list of the amount of police related injuries, I think the general public would get behind the police in prosecuting these thugs. The matter is an issue in the courts and no matter what your side is, there is never a reason to take law into your own hands.


----------



## Steel Badger (22 Apr 2006)

This is no longer a "race" issue.....( if members of same race being at odds can be considered racist)...

Given that the standoff is drawing the rabble rousers, militants and hard cases of the Warrior Society like moths to the flame, expect this to get worse.......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2006)

Yup, OCAP will be there soon to call them all homeless..........that and the hardship of cashing a welfare cheque while manning a blockade for two months.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Apr 2006)

Protesters who wish to stand on their moral belief in the justice of their cause serve a role in society by taking a stand, being arrested, and having their day in court.  Nelson Mandella did more for his cause by standing trial and going to prison, drawing attention to the plight of his people, and forcing an examination of the issues, than his wife did with her "soccer club" of violent thugs.  If the natives believe in the justice of their cause, stand bare faced, allow yourself to be arrested, and have your day, and your say in court.  If the natives are nothing but vandals and bandits, continue to cover your face like a thief, burn tresspass and destroy like a terrorist, and be ready to die like the dog that you are.  Thus always to bandits.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> Zertz,
> 
> Dude, you're just plain wrong, fella.  You are not even close to being right or having a leg to stand on.  I mean just way off and blind folded in the field of wrong in the middle of the night.



And this coming from someone, who based on their posts here, appears to be the SME in field of wrong, ah irony. 8)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Apr 2006)

If you were blindfolded in a field of wrong, would you not be exempted from the wrongness of the field by virtue of the blindfold and thus immune to it's influence?  And thus not being influenced by the wrongness of said field, by default, be the only thing in it that was right?  
Zertz, I think that Guess is complimenting you in his own convoluted bass akwards way.  Or maybe just crying out for help.  Either or.  ???


----------



## Steel Badger (22 Apr 2006)

Funnily enough Bruce, I saw two guys from the John Howard society on TV hanging out wit der "homies" at the barricades......

Getting a jump on the process eh?


Not to mention the other Barton Street (Ir) regulars who showed up for inmate solidarity day with their native comrades!


----------



## Zertz (22 Apr 2006)

Zipperhead_cop, ah the joy of analyzing.  <3


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (22 Apr 2006)

I think it is time to say  enough is enough, protest is over go home or we will send you home. I do not want this to be like some of the protest outcomes in the States, where the National Guard, police and the natives get into a huge gun battle, I do not want to see troops sent to remove them. (Wounded Knee 1973
No Canadian Soldier wants to walk a line again with a weapon pointed at fellow Canadians, even if they are in the wrong or breaking a law. Soldiers should never be used to enforce laws, government orders in their own country, the soldier will always come out looking bad afterwards no matter how well they  do the job given to them. No one wants to see " media reporting Tanks deployed to Southern Ontario" not that  it will be a tank, but we all know the media will say it was tank because it looked like a tank, guys in green drove it, had a gun on it, must be a tank. I think the police should do the job this time, remove the protesters, remove the road blocks after checking for boobytraps, ( propane tanks buried in the sand like Oka) then reopen the roads for the various repairs needed and put the protesters in jail and let the courts decide on the punishment, who was right and who was wrong and who owns the land.  
let everyone have a chance to show their side to a judge and be done with it.

If they do decide to remove them by force, I hope the natives decide to give in before anyone gets hurt, i do not want to read police kill a protester, excessive force used, or do i want to read police officers hurt or killed by protesters. No one needs to get hurt. the native band has high priced lawyers, let they solve it in the court room and let the lawyers battle it out, cheaper for everyone.

i was at Ipperwash, I have some knowledge of what I say. Native Protesters have their own set of rules and the governement has their own set.  Never equal. I am not a pro police or pro native group in these protests. I just want it over.


----------



## Gunnar (22 Apr 2006)

> Unless you are illiterate it's actually pretty easy to have a legal protest.



Protests are not about filling out government forms, nor do they need approval by the government--that's the point...the government needs approval by the people!.  This kind of legislation flies in the teeth of a free society.  Once you accept that the government has a RIGHT to limit your protests, either in scope, time, walking speed, etc., etc....you've effectively killed the ability of the populace to protest an unjust government.

"Protests must be held in an industrial district, not on private property, between the hours of 3 - 4 AM.  Protest chants may not exceed 25 decibels.  Protesters must wear striped clothing with appropriately issued "protest" numbers stitched on the back."

Fomenting insurrection, damage to private and public property, etc., etc. are all amply covered by THE LAW.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

I don't care who protests what, so long as they don't infringe on the rights and freedoms of the rest of society. Protest and civil disobedience are not synonymous concepts, no matter what the anarchists and law breakers would try have you believe.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Apr 2006)

There is nothing about approval in the bylaw. 

The City is just asking to be informed if you are planning on shutting down roadways. 

If you want to keep it on the sidewalk, they really don't care. 

*edit* I should add, I don't necessarily agree with it. The question was asked, and that is the answer. *shrug*


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Or is it more of a case of new claims going in as the properties are about to be developed?



BINGO !!!     (no punt intended but its rather fitting)


----------



## UberCree (22 Apr 2006)

This whole thread has been VERY educational in more ways than you can imagine.




			
				Piper said:
			
		

> My comment regarding billy-clubs and tear gas still stands. With the addition of C7 covering fire (the bullet's ain't rubber) and some armoured support from nearby CF units. The natives have attacked police, broken laws, vandalised and the Mohawk Warriors are moving in and getting involved (being the bunch of criminal terrorists they are).
> 
> GO!!!! is right, this is no longer protest or civil disobidience. It is domestic terrorism.



Piper, think about what you are saying and advocating.  remember a time and place where minor criminals were beaten for stealing (1993 Somalia???), to be made an example of, and the wider implications it had on the CF.  Two young guys named Kyle Brown and Clayton Matchee that thought the way you do, "bust heads!!" would sort things out.  Remember the implications this had in Canada and for the CF.  All it would take is one young eager troop (on ether side) to turn this current blockade into a huge mess.  
I am glad troops like you have officers and discipline.   Without it where would we be?  My guess is the Canadian public would disband the whole cF.


----------



## QV (22 Apr 2006)

I think the gist of the sentiments around here are that if people are actively engaged in criminal activity they should be immediately apprehended and brought to trial in order to keep the peace and prevent further crime.  Quit comparing this to Somalia or Ipperwash.  That was years ago and this is now.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Apr 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> This whole thread has been VERY educational in more ways than you can imagine.
> 
> 
> Piper, think about what you are saying and advocating.  remember a time and place where minor criminals were beaten for stealing (1993 Somalia???), to be made an example of, and the wider implications it had on the CF. * Two young guys named Kyle Brown and Clayton Matchee that thought the way you do, "bust heads!!" would sort things out.*


Not really. 

Clayton Matchee beat Shidane Arone to death in a sandbag bunker. This was not an act of "setting an example" it was an act of a sick man in a situation I doubt many of us can imagine. There was no agenda there, just one guy, acting alone, in the dark.



> Remember the implications this had in Canada and for the CF.


That faceless bureaucrats were permitted to cut a viable unit and capability as a cost saving measure by accusing one member of a thousand man unit of a crime? 



> All it would take is one young eager troop (on ether side) to turn this current blockade into a huge mess.


We have members of an ethnic group fighting with the police, costing law abiding citizens their homes and legitimate, publicly owned corporations millions of dollars. 

THIS IS ALREADY A HUGE MESS



> I am glad troops like you have officers and discipline.   Without it where would we be?  My guess is the Canadian public would disband the whole cF.


Last time I checked, NCOs enforce discipline, Officers lead/manage. I guess things could have changed since friday though.

*I* think the Canadian public wants to know that an ethnic minority group is not free to attack law enforcement and steal property without consequence - and that they would support the use of force to prevent it. 

This is not an issue of "rights", it is an issue of one group of people using force to get their way, and it should be stopped. Undoubtedly, agitators from other reserves and countries are already en route. If this had been stopped, the natives had been arrested and jailed as soon as the first fire was lit, this could have been resolved a long time ago. 

I predict that we will start seeing more camoflage, guns, flags and bravado in the coming days, as groups like the Warrior society flow in. The danger of 30% unemployment I suppose...


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (22 Apr 2006)

I would like to hear opinions of those of Native descent on this forum. Do you agree that those at this "protest" took the right course, do you disagree but wouldn't tell the "protestors" because you are native as well? Any ideas on how these "land claim" problems can be avoided in the future because it seems to me that if the government allows lawless activity to happen in this case, whats to stop another band from acting outside Canadian law down the road?


----------



## Guest (22 Apr 2006)

You guy attack me from 8 sides and why I try to respond to every single argument, you say I make no sense.  Well, that hurts.  In any case, what really hurts is that the consensus seems to be that I lost the argument to the "let's move in with extreme prejudice and crack some native skulls" crowd.  

I have to say though, I can imagine you guys would be able to throw a really fine protest if you ever had to, what with all your city planning approval licences and making sure that nobody is inconvenienced. Boring! Anybody here heard of rock'n roll?  Anybody here like to go out for night of drinking and throw around the dukes once in a while?  Does nobody recognize that protesting is about breaking the law and causing an inconvenience?!?!??!  Where's the spirit?  You sound like a bunch of schoolmarms with your law and order talk.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> You guy attack me from 8 sides and why I try to respond to every single argument, you say I make no sense.  Well, that hurts.  In any case, what really hurts is that the consensus seems to be that I lost the argument to the "let's move in with extreme prejudice and crack some native skulls" crowd.
> 
> I have to say though, I can imagine you guys would be able to throw a really fine protest if you ever had to, what with all your city planning approval licences and making sure that nobody is inconvenienced. Boring! Anybody here heard of rock'n roll?  Anybody here like to go out for night of drinking and throw around the dukes once in a while?  Does nobody recognize that protesting is about breaking the law and causing an inconvenience?!?!??!  Where's the spirit?  You sound like a bunch of schoolmarms with your law and order talk.



thats a real intelligent way to make you point  :

Back away from  the keyboard  and get a colouring book and a box of crayons.


----------



## Pea (22 Apr 2006)

I am of Metis status, which really isn't much for Native status. However, I am able to receive a few benefits according to my family. This is not something I have ever even looked into though.

My Mom is a proud Metis woman who has spent a lot of time trying to learn our heritage and trying to help out with programs aimed at the Metis/Native community. Growing up in Northern Alberta where we are surrounded by many Native reserves I have seen a lot. There is a huge problem with alcoholism amongst the native people in my home town area. Sadly, the native people are known for this and welfare up there. I know it isn't Native's a whole who are like this but because of the small area and population of Native people up there it does give off this image. 

I won't sit here and say I know much about Native culture or about how the land laws and such work though. My Mom grew up on a Metis settlement in Northern Alberta, which is a very calm place and basically just a bunch of acerages. However, I have been to a Native reserve near my hometown where if you are not a "full blood native" you need to watch yourself. I honestly did not feel safe when I was there at all. I got the stare down a lot and was even threatened just for being there. I am not saying all reserves are like this, but this one sure was. 

This mindset of how native people are constantly being wronged really bothers me. I have some knowledge of the past and what occured way back when, so I understand a bit of where it all started, but I think the current battles are quite silly. I was watching the news yesterday and they were showing footage of a protest being held by some Native people, and frankly it made me feel embarrassed to be of Metis status. I do not understand the need for the violence and protests. Why can't we settle these disputes in a civilized nature? I won't pretend to know how to solve these disputes and I am just as lost as others. What I will say though is standing there with rocks in socks, and nails in boards waiting for someone to try and stop them is not the way. I really wish I could offer some input as to how I think this can all be resolved, but I am still trying to figure that out myself. 

Not sure if this post will be of any use to anyone, but I thought I'd throw it in anyway.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> You guy attack me from 8 sides and why I try to respond to every single argument, you say I make no sense.  Well, that hurts.


What does - making no sense? 



> In any case, what really hurts is that the consensus seems to be that I lost the argument to the "let's move in with extreme prejudice and crack some native skulls" crowd.


You lost the argument because you are;

1) Wrong

2) Unable to articulate your position

3) Arguing against law and order on a forum dominated by soldiers, police and retired soldiers and police.



> I have to say though, I can imagine you guys would be able to throw a really fine protest if you ever had to, what with all your city planning approval licences and making sure that nobody is inconvenienced.


Our employment as members of the CF forbids us the privelige of protesting government policies, and our respect for the laws of Canada means that even if we had it, we would not attack police officers as a method of trying to force the federal government to give us our way.



> Boring! Anybody here heard of rock'n roll?  Anybody here like to go out for night of drinking and throw around the dukes once in a while?


Of course not. Infanteers are known for their love of horticulture and reading Nietzsche over a snifter of brandy.  :



> Does nobody recognize that protesting is about breaking the law and causing an inconvenience?!?!??!  Where's the spirit?  You sound like a bunch of schoolmarms with your law and order talk.


Once again - you are posting on army.ca. 

For me, a "good" protest would involve a six foot shield, a gas mask and baton, and long haired hippies falling out of their birkenstocks running away from the CS. So I guess it would be inconvenient...for them  >.


----------



## sober_ruski (22 Apr 2006)

QV said:
			
		

> Saw on the news earlier that 15 of the 16 people arrested were released with conditions (one condition being to stay away from the protest).  The lawyer for them said on the news that his clients don't recognize the court's jurisdiction.


Then when they decide to go to a hospital they should be refused on the grounds of governmen not recognizing their claim to public health care. Same goes for everything else.


----------



## sober_ruski (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> Well then, you should go protest the decision.  Go start a chain email and see how far you get.  In any case, you disagree with the law, so are you going to support it in any case.  *Or are you going to disregard it because you are part of a majority? * Not the world I want to live in.


It is called... what's the word again... DEMOCRACY!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> You guy attack me from 8 sides and why I try to respond to every single argument, you say I make no sense.  Well, that hurts.  In any case, what really hurts is that the consensus seems to be that I lost the argument to the "let's move in with extreme prejudice and crack some native skulls" crowd.
> 
> I have to say though, I can imagine you guys would be able to throw a really fine protest if you ever had to, what with all your city planning approval licences and making sure that nobody is inconvenienced. Boring! Anybody here heard of rock'n roll?  Anybody here like to go out for night of drinking and throw around the dukes once in a while?  Does nobody recognize that protesting is about breaking the law and causing an inconvenience?!?!??!  Where's the spirit?  You sound like a bunch of schoolmarms with your law and order talk.


       Buddy, you absolutely do not want to party with us.  That law and order respect that you think is such weakness is what keeps those of us with the skills and training to rock and roll for real from turning your fancy "warrior society" blockades into thirty seconds of rangex.  Hug that press corps tightly, and smile at the nice police officers, because you absolutely do not want to pass beyond their purview, and into ours.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Apr 2006)

We're done here.  If you have something to add that isn't a personal attack, then contact a Mod.  It may be opened.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 May 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060522/blockade_dispute_060522



> Power transformer near blockade was vandalized
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


----------



## jerrythunder (26 May 2006)

hi, i was wondering how everyone feels about the situation going on in Caledonia and what the outcome might or will be.


----------



## JBP (26 May 2006)

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is already a thread on here about this... A big one... Where you can very easily see everyone's feelings on the issue! Somewhere... Current affairs I think it's under?!?!


----------



## jerrythunder (26 May 2006)

Crap! i searched the word Caledonia and only got a small refrence! grrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 May 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42435.0.html


----------



## Yrys (21 Sep 2007)

Article link



> A Caledonia couple is launching a $10-million lawsuit against the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ontario government.
> 
> Dana Chatwell and David Brown held a news conference in Hamilton on Friday morning. The couple alleges the province is responsible for the disturbances that have been created at the Douglas Creek Estates site, which it purchased, and that the province interfered with the OPP carrying out its duties to enforce the law. The couple also alleges the OPP is guilty of breach of duty for making a policy decision not to enforce the laws of Canada, Ontario and Haldimand County.
> 
> ...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Mar 2008)

It's gotta be discouraging for the police officers who still have to be at this site. I wonder how long this is going to be allowed to drag on?
Shared with usual disclaimers.

Ottawa must chip in for Caledonia: McGuinty
 Cost of native occupation to Ontario taxpayers is $50 million — and rising

Mar 18, 2008 01:55 PM 
Chinta Puxley 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

It's time Ottawa chipped in more cash to cover the expense of a southern Ontario aboriginal occupation that's cost provincial taxpayers $50 million and counting, Premier Dalton McGuinty said today.

Although the federal government gave Ontario $26 million a year ago to help pay for the Caledonia occupation, the province has since paid out $50 million – the bulk of it for round-the-clock policing.

As costs continue to rise with no resolution to the two-year occupation in sight, McGuinty said it's time for another cheque.

"We will be there for as long as we have to in order to ensure that we keep both sides at the table and that they resolve their outstanding differences," McGuinty said.

"Obviously we will continue to incur costs. Ontario taxpayers continue to incur costs as a result of a difference between a First Nations community and the federal government."

"We think it's only fair that the federal government contribute."

The province's policing costs are now pegged at $35 million and rising, while taxpayers have also spent almost $500,000 for the Six Nations negotiating team that has been meeting for two years to resolve the dispute.

The province has spent a further $3.5 million on help for businesses and residents in Haldimand County and another $3.3 million on its own negotiation costs and expenses. Another $6.9-million cheque was sent to the former owners of the disputed land, Henco, and other builders.

McGuinty wouldn't say how much he wants the federal government to chip in, but said the province is in this for the long haul and Ontario taxpayers shouldn't bear the cost of that patience alone.

"It's unfortunate that it's gone on for this length of time," McGuinty said of the occupation. "We'll do everything that we can to find ways to accelerate the process."

Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said the province will continue to live up to its responsibility to pay for policing. But he said the Caledonia dispute shows the federal government should take a more ``meaningful approach" to land claim negotiations.

"It's unfortunate that the feds haven't taken negotiations seriously," Duncan said. "The larger agenda here is a meaningful approach to negotiation on land disputes, not just here but across the country. They need to take a different approach."

But provincial Tories say it's the governing Liberals who need to change tack before they go to Ottawa for more money. Conservative Lisa MacLeod said it's time for the Liberals to refuse to negotiate until the occupation has ended.

"They are not upholding the rule of law and that is costing Ontario enormous amounts of money," she said. "They have to start looking within before they start blaming the federal government."

New Democrat Gilles Bisson said the federal government does have a responsibility to help resolve the dispute and pay for it. But he said the provincial Liberals bear some blame for allowing the land claim to boil over into an occupation in the first place.

"It's been allowed to fester for so long," he said. "The government didn't do what it had to do in the beginning. This unfortunately is the cost of resolving it. We need to find a peaceful resolution to this."

Six Nations protesters have occupied a former housing development site in the southwestern town for over two years, contending the land was stolen from them by the Crown.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Mar 2008)

So we have to pay for McGuinty's mismanagement?  When does he NOT have his hand out?


----------



## footslogger (19 Mar 2008)

Maybe if the Government of the time had resolved the claim 20 or however many years it has been allowed to fester it would not have come to this.


----------



## Old Ranger (19 Mar 2008)

And hence it's nickname is Cash-a-donia.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (19 Mar 2008)

> taxpayers have also spent almost $500,000 for the Six Nations negotiating team



 : : :


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 May 2009)

*OPP stop man from raising Canadian flag*

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/571497



> May 25, 2009
> The Hamilton Spectator
> CALEDONIA (May 25, 2009)
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2009)

McGuinty and Fantino are the ones at fault because of their inaction and condonance. Ottawa owes Ontario nothing for this. It should have been shut down the minute it started. McGuinty has to learn how to grow a pair. He can't put a ban, the only thing he knows, in place so he is lost as to what he can do. Let it be his legacy.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2009)

"Ontario police banned Canadian flag in occupied areas of Caledonia, court hears: HAMILTON -- Recent videos of two flag-waving marches along the main street in Caledonia, passing a site that has been occupied by native protesters since 2006, were shown in court on Thursday, starkly highlighting the different reactions of police to aboriginal marchers and Caledonia residents.:"
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2273320


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2010)

( An old topic, but I think this is where this update should go. )

"Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us.":
http://www.amazon.ca/Helpless-Caledonias-Nightmare-Anarchy-Failed/dp/0385670397

November 14, 2010
"Christie Blatchford event shut down: Campus leftists are again showing their desire for free expression and free exchange of ideas, by shutting down yet another event that they don’t particularly agree with.":
http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/christie-blatchford/

"What was scheduled as a speech by Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford turned sour tonight as protesters opposing the journalist's new book Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us took over the stage.":
http://www.thecord.ca/articles/37575


----------



## GAP (14 Nov 2010)

Apparently free speech only applies to those you want to hear..... :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2014)

Hey!   The OPP actually did something in Caledonia.  


http://www.chch.com/opp-probe-caledonia

A stunning development in Caledonia. We’ve learned that the OPP has raided a Catholic church and seized computers that are alleged to have contained child porn.

Police aren’t saying exactly what is on the computers, but they do say they were seized and are now being analyzed by both their crime unit and their child exploitation unit.

The OPP confirmed that it took the computers from St. Patricks Church in Caledonia which is right next door to St. Patrick’s Elementary School.

We tried to contact the priests who preside at St. Patrick’s Church but the phone would only go to voice message. And emails sent to the priests weren’t replied to.

On the church website the pastor is listed as Father Mario Fernandes. He became the parish priest in spring of last year. The other priest is Father Ronald M. Sequiera, a 34-year old priest from India who joined the church in August of 2013.

St. Patrick’s Church falls under the jurisdiction of the diocese of St. Catharines.

An official, speaking on behalf of Bishop Gerrard Bergie said that the diocese is aware of the allegation that child porn was on a computer at the parish office, and that computers at St. Patrick’s were confiscated, but they do not have any more information than that and they have not been in contact with St. Patricks Church as the investigation continues.

No charges have been laid. The police tell me this is an on going investigation. Their technology information department is working on it but have given no timeline about when they expect to wrap up their investigation and decide whether to lay charges.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hey!   The OPP actually did something in Caledonia.
> 
> 
> http://www.chch.com/opp-probe-caledonia
> ...



Whoopee!! A bunch of unarmed priests. Probably thought they were going to vote for Tim Hudak.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Jun 2014)

I'll just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wy6qJXF3t0


----------

