Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Friday, August 25, 2006

The Madness of Caledonia

Just who is "Hazel Hill"? I've been reading her posts on Ottawa Core of late, and every time I do, I get totally annoyed and frustrated. Based on her most recent post, I'm getting the impression that the Six Nations "negotiations" in Caledonia are about nothing less than a total stop of all development along a 12km swath of land along the entire length of the Grand River... unless, of course, they're first cleared by the Six Nations. Just read her posts for yourself... take a careful look at the sort of language she uses. This is total and complete madness.

Let's just put that in perspective... that 12km swath (6kms either side of the Grand River) covers most of Caledonia, Brantford, Paris, Cambridge, and large chunks of Kitchener and Waterloo. Are they then, based on the statements of people like Hazel, effectively wanting to "re-establish" control over a good chuck of the powerhouses of Southwestern Ontario?

Like I've been saying people, what's going on in Caledonia is about a whole lot more than just a housing development. It's about whether or not Canada has a right to exist, and whether or not our governments (municipal, provincal, and federal) have the right to exert control within our internationally recognzed borders. It comes down to what John Tory as been pointing out... "The Rule of Law". And I've heard over and over again from protest supporters, "Your laws don't apply here." (in effect, "Canadian Laws" do not apply on Canadian soil...)

We certianly do need these negotiations to continue... and to come to a final solution to end this madness, once and for all.

posted by Christian Conservative @ 5:32 p.m.  

39 Comments:

  • At Fri Aug 25, 07:12:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Agreed. This has already spun out of control so far that talk is useless. Anarchy cannot be allowed and there is only one way to really deal with it. Diplomacy only serves to prolong a crisis.

     

  • At Fri Aug 25, 09:34:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with the call in the Army idea. As for the Ottawa Core . I got "disallowed" access a while back for suggesting some people there get jobs and obay the laws of the land.

     

  • At Fri Aug 25, 09:52:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    apparently, writing a blog doesn't obviate an ability to read. it's six miles each side of the grand from source to end.

    hazel's nuance on the term "negotiations" has sparked a debate in the community (not the community which is bent on undermining talks, as here). of course, drawing you a picture may not suffice to give you any further understanding either since that wouldn't fit with your obvious disrespect over an entire nation of people. good on you.

    as to robc: your vile racist posts aren't allowed the light of day in polite society. why should i provide you a forum to spew? i've deleted the worst of your criminal hate but this should give others an illustration of your level of humanity.

    robc: "You clowns should let Auditor General Shelia Fraser go over your books and she would root out all these evil wtihe thieves. Yeeeaaaa Right"

     

  • At Fri Aug 25, 09:54:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    that last post was mine. somehow the preview/submit function missed the name field.

     

  • At Fri Aug 25, 11:57:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Ottawa, thanks for the clarification on the miles vs. kms... my bad.

    As for your comment on "drawing a picture"... I truely mean no disrespect towards anyone, I just am really having a very hard time understanding this whole issue. Is the goal of these negotiations to regain control of these lands? Is this an issue of compensation? What will bring an end (a permanent one, not a temp one) to these sorts of protests? What can we do to live together in peace?

    These are the questions I'm asking... any honest assistance you could provide is most welcome. The point of my post was that the things Hazel has been saying, if heard by the general public, might not be taken too kindly.

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 12:22:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    My kneejerk mental response to much of the Ottawa Core bloggery I have read is: "Kwanzaa"

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 01:01:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Eric said…

    Christian Conservative...

    If you read Ottawa's answer they are not denying that they are claiming a massive chunk of territory (in fact her correction makes the size of territory larger than you initially stated).

    Hazel's blog also indicates that the land issue is 'non-negotiable'. Essentially Hazel is advocating that the fed and prov government give them everything they want without any concessions on their part (which they feel are unnecessary).

    Neither side is going to succeed. Primarily because the government will never surrender that much land, and because forcibly evicting people from their homes is political suicide. As the natives are similarly unwilling to compromise then no solution will be reached.

    My opinion is that for better or worse, the situation is what it is now. Trying to turn back the clock is impossible and perhaps even dangerous to society.

    I say this as someone who's family was forcibly evicted from their home (at gunpoint) and chased across an ocean as refugees from a conflict.

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 03:25:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    christian conservative:

    i don't believe you. you cleverly veil your disrespect. while saying one thing you mean the opposite. really i'm trying to help, just hold still while i slit your throat.

    if you are genuinely interested in gathering an intelligent opinion you wouldn't automatically fall in with concepts based on "looking for something dirty, cruel, exiting, and/or odd". tabloid journalism has crept into the blogosphere. if you read the last post on my blog by hazel you would know (and be able to appear informed) when you write about this crisis.

    from a simple pleading to stop the urban sprawl from overwhelming a quiet urban town to an f'en national crisis.

    legal process was initiated in 1995. the government can, and often does, ignore, prolong, misdirect, obfuscate, and ignore (did i say that enough. ignored native claims.) making a big big big big issue out of it draws the question: who's got the oomph to move the national propaganda machine? money media and money politics. the two estates of democracy which ever increasingly dictate our freedoms allowed us in our lives.

    either way, the real facts impacting the lives swept up by the push to "make a point of this one" are spiritually debilitating. the entire community has been brought into a matter which could easily have been resolved without media participation.

    the very fact that the opp raided the encampment (at this point, no disruption to any services of the normal citizenry had taken place) at 4 in the morning dressed in riot gear, beating people groggy from sleep has to tell you something. they hadn't done a thing.

    until we can establish just who it was that gave the orders that morning to the opp for the raid we'll never line up all the players and know just how their internicine affairs work (for the benefit of us all). mcguinty, and harris before him, denied any culpability in pulling the opp's strings.

    so, instead of anyone getting to the nub, the shitstorm of an aggressive campaign maligning any credibility of any land claims for any aboriginal people anywhere rolls down the highway of progress and uncontrolled disaster. while the native people trying to hold their ground prove to be, once again, a very much more difficult foe to "control".

    harumph. couldn't it have been resolved by simply dealing with their concerns? something's broke. it needs an examination (indian affairs operations and policies) and as a member of the ruling party, i'd like us to relate to the problem instead of blaming the applicant for the resolution. land claims is a serious portfolio. it used to be a lot more so. our connection to the original people of this land has seen better times. i'd like to see a larger societal mindset intune with a natural and progressive agenda for change. the way things are playing out, we're much more interested in providing socialist services to a segment of our population which clearly don't need our brand of "help".

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 06:32:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger gimbol said…

    Dalton is going to rue the day he decided to legitimize this occupation.

    The issue of two tier justice is going to sink him at the polls next election.

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 07:36:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    OC - "i don't believe you. you cleverly veil your disrespect."

    I'm sorry you feel that way. To be honest, I've been someone who has always felt that the current state of Native Affairs has been poor, and that we need to find a way to honestly examine and resolve these issues. The situation in Caledonia, I feel, will only serve to exhaust what goodwill exists within a lot of people.

    the way things are playing out, we're much more interested in providing socialist services to a segment of our population which clearly don't need our brand of "help".

    I agree and disagree with you here... I agree that many seem to think that the socialist method of "more money, more services" is the way to go, however, what do you mean by "clearly don't need our brand of 'help'."? Are you referring to their ability to hold a town/province/nation hostage, such as in Caledonia?

    I posted this because most people don't have a clue what Caledonia is all about. Your post reaffirms my orginal question... is the goal of this protest to stop all development (or "urban sprawl", as you stated) in Southwestern Ontario?

    If so, then the citizens of Ontario need to be made aware of it, as it will directly impact the lives of millions of people. (by significantly slowing aspects of the economic engine of the country)

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 09:06:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "It's about whether or not Canada has a right to exist, and whether or not our governments (municipal, provincal, and federal) have the right to exert control within our internationally recognzed borders."

    Technically no country has the ontological right to exist, it simply comes down to power. If the natives had better weapons than us they would then "have the right" to the land. It's never been about the right, it's always been about the power.

    Of course the whole dispute is meaningless because nobody can own land any more than they can own anything simply because ownership is nothing more than a collective agreement (and again, based on the collective with the most power), and really nothing more than a collective illusion at this point.

    For CC, and any others who might call themselves "Christians," the whole concept of nations and ownwership go completely against Christ's teachings as far as I can see. If the natives are asking for 12km of land we should give them 24km if we truly claim to be following Christ. If the natives want to "kill our country" (so to speak) the most Christ-like thing we can do is to drop dead (ie., give up our so-called "right" to the country) so that they may live. Not very practical, of course, but it may just be the most spiritual thing we could ever do.

    And please note that I'm not actually suggesting we do these things because I don't believe for a second that there are more than perhaps seven actual followers of Christ in this whole country.

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 11:44:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "... we need to find a way to honestly examine and resolve these issues....Are you referring to their ability to hold a town/province/nation hostage,..."

    yeah, i see your point. thanks for your honest attempts at helping resolve matters. hahaha

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 11:46:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    drew: thank you for adding that perspective. it's refreshing to actually have his spirit revived through you. peace.

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 05:30:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yep ottawa core is open to civil discusion AS LONG AS EVERYONE AGREES WITH HIM/HER

     

  • At Sat Aug 26, 06:09:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I won't thinly veil my disrespect, nope. the Indians, not natives, just plain old Indians, should be given 10 minutes to disperse, then about three large fire trucks should arrive and with water cannons from 3 sides, wash them off the property in the direction whence they came, and told to play by the white-man's rules, ie, court, or face a similar soaking everytime they show up at the site. no exceptions. Indian protest are nothing more than media-sympathy lpoys and we should by now be able to see through them as such. What if the Indians held a protest/blockade and no media showed up? Nothing would happen, because all they want is media attention, and when they don't get it, they go home. good riddance

    Am I a racist?....probably. Am I sick and tired of paying the Indian Tax? You damn right. Work, or go hungry. to para-phrase something
    I read in a book called the Bible: give a man a fish, he eats for a day......you guy's know the rest. I'm sick of paying an endless debt of guilt for transgressions of the past. I didn't do anything to those Indians, and the injured party's involved are all dead. It's all old news and crying about it 200 yrs later is rediculous. Get over it already!

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 12:10:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Our PM should be doing his job. Or, we should do it Harris' way and kill one of the natives.

    Oh, yes, PM is playing fireman and hasn't got time.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 12:57:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    To the self-identified "Anonymous racist"... your comments are not helpful to this discussion. I'm asking honestly felt questions, and the solutions you propose are unacceptable. While I disagree with the native protesters, I don't agree with you and your views. They are indeed "racist".

    As for your "give a man a fish" comment that you got from the "Bible", please try again... you got the wrong book, cause that ain't in there.

    OC, sorry once again that you feel the way you do about my comments. Do you have any suggestions on how I could express my views or ask questions in a way that might be more helpful? I'd prefer to understand and assist, rather than just vent.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 08:42:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    I would like to understand this better too. Is the basic issue "urban sprawl"? If so, could this not be dealt with more efficiently in discussions with city planners?

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 08:53:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    CC, I'm not saying I agree with the "self-identified "Anonymous racist"", but I am curious what is wrong (not to mention racist) with what he said? I am also curious why the so-called "natives" (who are no more native than I am seeing as I was born here just like they were, and their ancestors originally immigrated to this land just like mine did, even if it was a few thousand years earlier than mine) have any more claim to the land than the rest of us do. To say that they have any claim to it means that every territory on the planet would have to give the land back to somebody else because pretty much the whole planet was taken by force from some other group at some point in time.

    Here's an idea. Get rid of the concept of nations and races altogether and start realizing that we're all simply fellow human beings (some with a little more melanin than others perhaps, but still all relatives) and perhaps we'll be a little closer to peace with each other. What we humans need to do is tear down all unnecessary barriers, be it national, religious, economic, racial, etc., and start uniting as fellow humans. If you need to put a Christian spin on it then realize that all humanity is one in Christ (the incarnation took all of humanity into Christ, and when He died we all died and when He rose we all rose in Him and we are now ALL the flesh of Christ in this world). Tear down all the barriers we've created and start looking towards new horizons with each other.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 09:04:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Drew, I was just responding to his self comment on being a racist. Nothing he said per-se was racist (I certainly don't agree with his "indian" and firetruck approach to conflict resolution, or his anger towards the "indian tax") but those kinds of views are most often held by racists.

    As to control of the land, I agree with you to a large degree... displacement of persons has been how the world works for thousands of years, and the natives are just one of the worlds most recent examples.

    (now, of course, some will try and spin my words above in the context of Israel... unless you want to talk about it in a Biblical contexts, forget about it. And they're there now anyway)

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 03:44:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Do you have any suggestions on how I could express my views or ask questions in a way that might be more helpful? I'd prefer to understand and assist, rather than just vent." -cc

    i would suggest coming to the table with an open mind. "While I disagree with the native protesters,..." is a sticky point.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 04:39:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I would like to understand this better too. Is the basic issue "urban sprawl"? If so, could this not be dealt with more efficiently in discussions with city planners?"-joanne

    it's basically: watching how your promised land (through historical and legally binding proclaimations) gets eaten up inch by inch by the people of canada. this encroachment has been going on for 200 years just like it is today. the onkwehonwe people (do not confuse them with other first nations people who have their own (dis)agreements and treaties with canada) have been trying to deal (in good faith as allies of the crown, with distinct nationhood status right along side canada, the united states, france, and britain) in an attempt to ensure seven generations of their kin will be taken care of by their actions today.

    the territory outside their doors (the very land their children would have possessed) is being gobbled up by developers who are bent on making caledonia a haven for rich hamiltonian commuters (it's only 30k away).

    the people protesting the douglas creek estates development simply went and set up camp on their land. the developer, who would not acknowledge any claim since the provincial government who sold him the land gave him apparent free title. his call to the provincial authorities brought about the violent attacks upon the protestors (an injunction and contempt order preceded the opp's early morning raid). that was met with a larger group of haudenosaunee (six nations confederacy) people who regained the six nations of the grand river's land. the six nations confederacy is well defined in this wiki page Iroquois: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois .

    suffice it to say, the peaceful protest is being disputed extremely and violently. whether the caledonian's (who have been living next door to the "reserve" for decades) are the instigators or mere puppets is yet to be exposed. latest news is that the provincial government is filling "anti-claim" group's coffers with millions of dollars.

    on the one hand you have the provincial government appearing to side with the native people while hints, discovery, and history shows that the government's schemes are working overtime to ensure the land remains under canadian rule.

    and the band plays on.

    and, to my great shock, the bloggingtories, to a man/woman, have come down on the side of the spin that native's are welfare bums. racists like kate mcmillan and raskolnikov lead the mass think. i was under the impression (since we brought this government in to power with our independant investigations and dogged pursuit of the truth) would see the truth in this matter. unfortunately, it appears that we are all racists. no one is willing to debate the issue of land claims. first and foremost, one has to wash off the stench of prejudice and political smear. it does seem as if it will be a long while getting to the next step.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 06:05:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "the bloggingtories, to a man/woman, have come down on the side of the spin that native's are welfare bums"

    I don't happen to see natives in that light whatsoever... you generalize incorrectly.

    I'll jump to the core of my view, be completely honest, in the hopes of fostering a more fruitful discussion... I have a hard time with the concept of an independant nation existing within the internationally recognized borders of Canada. I think most Canadians feel that way.

    My view is that Native peoples should be viewed as being Canadian, but that the are entitled to special rights and privilages due to their status as First Nations peoples. I think we can agree that the old school mentality of "Reserves" isn't working, and that we need to re-examine and overhaul how we do things, and find a means by which First Nations peoples can exist within our society, yet remain distinct and able to determine a large degree of their own affairs.

    As for the Grand River tract, perhaps the best bet is to find yet undeveloped areas, and ensure that a greater measure of control is granted back to the Six Nations. But to try to stop "urban sprawl" in already developed areas, such as Caledonia, I think, is just asking for confrontation.

    Now, I know you'll disagree with my last point, stating that control can't be "granted back" because it was never surrendered in the first place... well, I guess we're right back at square one of this whole disagreement.

    I hold the view that all land within Canada that is not directly titled to an individual or group is Crown land. I am of the view that some of these tracts should be granted back into control of various First Peoples groups.

    However, I don't think that these sorts of violent protests or blockades should be permitted. Yes, the affairs of Native Peoples has been terrible for generations, but what is done is done... instead of trying to turn back the clock, we should be trying to see how we can make our mutual future brighter for all.

    I think you'll find that to a large degree, most of the people of Canada will agree with the view that I have presented here. I know, based on your posts, and those of Hazel's, that you will disagree with me vehemently. My question then, is this... in that light, what can we honestly do to try and fix all this? Canadians are not going to accept the idea of just giving up tens of thousands of square kilometres of developed land, (including cities) and returning them to the control of First Nations peoples... no matter how valid their land claim may be. With that in view, what reasonable steps can we take to satisfy all needs of all parties being presented?

    Based on these points, you can call me a racist all you want... but I don't think such an accusation will hold water in the minds of most Canadians. I think you'll find that my views will likely line up with most of their views... and, scary thought, you may even find that I'm a little more "progressive" than most.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 06:42:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "My view is that Native peoples should be viewed as being Canadian, but that the are entitled to special rights and privilages due to their status as First Nations peoples."

    I agree with the first part of that sentence, but don't understand why anyone should be afforded special rights based on race or who their ancestors are. Canada took over the land and that's that. It wasn't nice of the early settlers (I'd say our ancestors, but my ancestors weren't in Canada far enough back in time to be responsible for this to the best of my knowledge) to do this, but what's done is done. Those born in the borders of the land now known as Canada are Canadians and no Canadian should get better or worse treatment simply because they were born to specific parents or a certain ethnic group. Of course I believe that the whole idea of nations is really nothing more than a collective delusion, but until the rest of the world figures that out we're stuck with the illusion of nations and those living within the "nation" known as Canada should all be considered equal with no special benefits or hinderances.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 08:00:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    cc: i've read every one of your posts on the caledonia situation. while you have picked up janke and bbs's trash you have made positive and conciliatory posts even still. thanks for not buying into their trash journalism. there's hope for you yet. i don't have time to go into every nuance left unclarified so we will start your education on a small logical mistake you have pursued.

    "I've been someone who has always felt that the current state of Native Affairs has been poor, and that we need to find a way to honestly examine and resolve these issues." -cc

    what CAUSED caledonia?

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 08:02:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    My view is that Native peoples should be viewed as being Canadian, but that the are entitled to special rights and privilages due to their status as First Nations peoples.

    Ah, no. First Nations peoples are not entitled to special rights and privileges. They are entitled to whatever the treaties, which are really just contracts, say they get and no more (or less). This, I think, is a major point of confusion. We offered to pay the original land owners a stipend for their land, sort of a rent in perpetuity, and it is beholden on us (and them) to live up to the terms of those contracts. Sometimes those contracts were well negotiated, sometimes it was "the best deal we could get." Sometimes the land was simply annexed with no negotiations at all.

    I will say at that I have no problems with the original land owners forcing the current land owners to honour contracts. I do have a problem with the previous land owners trying to renegotiate agreements. If you made a bad deal, you made a bad deal. That's life. As for land annexation, nations do that to other nations, and their own citizens, all of the time. It's not fair, but again that's life.

    As for the current mess in Caledonia, the original complaint was over non-payment, not repossession. From what little I have read the original land owners are still owed money from the government from the sale of the land and successive governments have been dragging their collective feet. There is also money that was paid and misappropriated by a trustee employed by the Six Nations but that is not the governments problem as they had no part in the business arrangement.

    I could go on about the nastiness and bad blood building between the Six Nations and people of Caledonia but that's a long post for later.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 08:16:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Canada took over the land and that's that." -drew

    if it were that simple...

    the fact remains to this very day, the haudenosaunee NEVER ceded any property to great britain or it's colony canada. you may be confused with other instants of first nations' treaties. the DEAL with the haudenosaunee people was specific to their allegiance to the crown in their war against the US for their independance. in return for losing their territory in the war britain rewarded them the haldimand tract FOREVER.

    in the mid 1800's, i don't have the link at hand, settlers decided the pristine virgin territory might suit their needs more than the iroquois confederacy. property was held by canada to help protect the indigenous people from encroachment and violence of mother britain's subjects.

    that process amounted to "reserving" a tiny parcel near brantford. the forfeiture of any rights to the property held for them has never been given and never forgotten.

    the truth of the matter is slowly coming out. the confusion and racist tripe only serves to relieve us of any responsibility for our agreements made in the name of the crown.

     

  • At Sun Aug 27, 10:40:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    Ottawa Core: ...the people protesting the douglas creek estates development simply went and set up camp on their land. the developer, who would not acknowledge any claim since the provincial government who sold him the land gave him apparent free title.

    Thanks for helping me try to understand the urban sprawl issue. With reference to the above comment, how is it possible that the provincial government sold the land if it is under dispute? Shouldn't someone's head roll over that one? Aren't land titles supposed to be searched to make sure they are free and clear, before any transaction is approved?

     

  • At Mon Aug 28, 07:40:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "the truth of the matter is slowly coming out. the confusion and racist tripe"

    I don't believe that very many people are actually being racist in this whole issue (calling somebody racist doesn't mean they really are, it is often just a red herring).

    "only serves to relieve us of any responsibility for our agreements made in the name of the crown."

    I don't recall making any agreements.

     

  • At Mon Aug 28, 08:03:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    joanne:

    this is key. the traditional people have no official status (at least not until we (the conservative government) recognized their chiefs to be heard in negotiations for six nations at this protest/land claim). the band council is the only legitimately recognized body to which the department of indian affairs has official documents for. if it's outside of the canadian system it's not there. the six nations band council (indian act mandated aboriginals) are administering 60 million dollars a year of canadian money. their allegiance/fear is to keep that money flowing. if their masters tell them to shut up, the systematic repurcussions are tested and effective. the traditional government, and its expansive territorial responsibilities (from new york state all along the st lawrence to montreal) has other ideals that have stood them in good stead for centuries.

     

  • At Mon Aug 28, 08:12:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    drew:

    racism is the core of this dispute. whether you are is not the point. the system in place to "assimilate" native cultures throughout canada's borders into a more civilized structure (pay taxes, get services, be merely another culture within canada's mosaic) is nearly complete. there are only a few tribes to go. believe me, if you had a peek at the comments i receive on my blog, you'd see just how relevant the issue of canadian's race relations is to this topic.

    "I don't recall making any agreements." -drew

    maybe your country did for you. since our representational government includes you, and or your ancestors, you made the deal. unless you dispute the legitimacy of the canadian government.

     

  • At Mon Aug 28, 10:38:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    O.C. Thanks, and please forgive me for being so slow to understand the nuances here. So you are saying that the traditional people are the Six Nations? And that they do not have official representation at the meetings with the government? And that the native chiefs in charge of handling money from the government are telling them not to rock the boat?

    Again, I'm just trying to understand. Thanks. I think a lot of the animosity is the result of a lack of communication between the various interest groups IMHO.

     

  • At Mon Aug 28, 03:48:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger OMMAG said…

    The only substance to the native argument is the document of granting by the colonial government.

    The natives selectively refuse to acknowledge that the granting was intended to reward the immediate grantees and to protect them from immediate threats such as foreign usurpers (French, American, competing tribal groups or others) and never did preclude the British from use of those lands.

    Further the natives choose to selectively ignore that those same grantees had free reign for their lifetimes and in many cases local chiefs elected to sell access to new immigrants....my Scots ancestors among them.

    Further that land grants of this nature were subject to 'English Common Law' and that means the grantees who did not remain on the land in question gave up their rights to it as soon as that land was abandoned. ( yes there are particular cases where natives were forced out by individuals, many such cases, but there was never a government race based agenda or policy to allow this .) The law of the day was "If you don't use it you lose it!"

    Another fact that is selectively ignored is that the colonial government of the time was by definition a transitory administration without any power to enforce any rulings or edict beyond its term of existence. The military governorship of the day was replaced first by successive civil governors who's mandate was not to sustain land grants but to ensure growth and exploitation of the resources within its jurisdiction and later by the Confederation of Canada.

    Canada never had any obligation to protect or sustain the older colonial grants and so never did.

    What the native groups are trying to do is to re-write history in their favour. The justification?

    There is none and that's why I call it BS.

    What is a realistic resolution to this?
    First- current governments need to enforce the existing laws and reinforce the fact that just because a group of people have a grievance they do not have an inherent right to break the law.
    Second - Since the claims of these groups have repeatedly been denied by courts and governments because they have no merit. The government needs to articulate this fact clearly.

     

  • At Mon Aug 28, 11:51:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "...you are saying that the traditional people are the Six Nations?" -joanne

    the hereditary chiefs of the six nations (chosen by the clanmothers, there are 50 of them in their grand council) were forced to abide to the indian act band council legislation in 1924. since that time the people have been represented in the canadian system by the elected band council. representations for the people outside the canadian system (a majority) are made directly to the governor general and the crown as a sovereign nation.

    "...they do not have official representation at the meetings with the government?" -joanne

    the status of the traditional council and/or individuals within six nations who haven't bought into the "status indian" deal are not heard. period. full stop. if you don't have your card, you can't speak. until, someone in our government finally realized that the mohawks (one of the six nations confederacy) had a point. i suppose oka & ipperwash gave rise to further investigations of their root cause and lo and behold, for the first time in canadian history, the traditional chiefs have a voice at the negotiations table at caledonia. i wrote about it on my blog back in may: ottawacore blog

    "...the native chiefs in charge of handling money from the government are telling them not to rock the boat?" -joanne

    the "aboriginal canadians" or the elected indian act band councillors are administrators of government funded programs. they have no status in their communities outside of being government paid employees. they do the work of the government similar to the times of indian agents. while our funds provide viable solutions from our point of view, it is still a foreign land controlling a nation they have no business being involved in.

     

  • At Tue Aug 29, 06:58:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    Thanks, Ottawa Core, for those clarifications.

    "it is still a foreign land controlling a nation they have no business being involved in.

    How is Canada (the "foreign land", I presume) "controlling the nation"?

     

  • At Tue Aug 29, 06:59:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    BTW, I am really looking forward to seeing what you have to say to those points that PGP made.

     

  • At Wed Aug 30, 01:27:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    Why would the Six Nations protestors be asking for building supplies to finish the houses when they are against development and urban sprawl???

     

  • At Wed Sep 06, 09:42:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    joanne:
    i promise i will get back to you on your questions. if you want to add your comments to the issue i have started on my forum you can follow me to:
    www.ottawacore.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0

    sorry if i appear to have dropped off, other matters are eating away my time.

     

  • At Fri Nov 17, 01:13:00 p.m. EST, Blogger granny said…

    I just reviewed the whole blog, and I think the comment that most needs to be made ... conservative christian this is for you ... is this:

    Six Nations has no interest in putting people out of their homes. The Government of Ontario has said that it will stand by its property deeds. This means that although Six Nations has valid claim to the Haldimand Tract (already acknowledged ... that is why they are looking at individual properties now), the government will pay compensation to SN (or substitute other lands) for any privately held lands in the tract. That includes the cities, etc.

    This is similar to the claim to Toronto by the Mississaugas Nations, that was confirmed 3 years ago.

    Thus, the SN claim to the Haldimand Tract is no threat to those living there.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home