“Canada Wants Another Oka Summer!”

57 Replies to ““Canada Wants Another Oka Summer!””

1. 6 nations radio live stream: http://www.ckrz.com
   I have a friend out there that is going to try and “get close”. I’ll come back with a url if he succeeds

2. There are many pathetic politically correct fictions that operate on the “generally accepted as true” level in Canada. One of these is the myth of Native sovereignty, which is really an legal artifact created by the courts to assuage guilt but mostly to keep the peace. Any such sovereignty was extinguished either by conquest or by the trickery of Treaties. It cannot be revivied except by Constituional Amendment; the rest is ultra vires the law, even if the Court has pronounced on it. But in this Post by Horn, there are new heights of fictional rhetoric reached: namely, that unborn generations can be parties to “legal” negotiations, and that Native women have somehow acquired rights by virtue of their sex (which as fas as I know is something that only happened to the BVM). Along with the Pathos of the poltically correct fictions where Native Canadians are concerned, is the self-delusion concerning who the real oppressors are: Native leadership, Band Councils, Chiefs et al who run their enterprises in true feudal fashion. Alas, none of this will change, even if the Indian Act does.

3. Well, that’s a lot of reading.
   Hard to derive any point from all of it.
   What central point do the, ah, extremists burning stuff in the road have? And how do they prove it or at least rationalize it?
   Do they think that race or ancestry makes them superior to or more deserving than those who didn’t happen to have been born into such an exalted, sacred, ever-so-special, um… “nation”?
   I still don’t get whatever point the Aboriginal extremists are trying to make. Why don’t they just say it? What is it?
   Is it that they want us non-Aboriginals to “go back where we came from”?
   Don’t non-Aboriginals have a right to live here, too?
   I was born here. So were my parents. And grandparents and so on. Am I not a native Canadian? What makes one native, anyway? RACE? What family you come from?
   And what do the Aboriginals have to say about those who are immigrants, who weren’t born here?
   It’s not about centuries-old treaties.
   It’s all about race. And that’s scary. I wish the Aboriginals would just accept those who are different, accept themselves and accept Canada.
   We’re supposed to be equal. But the extremists don’t sound like they share this value.
   What are the extremists really about? What are their true aims?

4. Is Cyr claiming property rights are human rights? I thought the Leftists already ruled on this, Trudeau didn’t want them protected in the Charter.

5. Good point, Kevin. I recall also that Paul Martin, in one of his many unhinged moments, in the last election claimed that property rights would lead to child labor…
   Definitely the left doesn’t believe in property rights… or do they, except only for certain persons, not for all Canadians?
   That would be proof that the left doesn’t believe in equality between all citizens.
   It’ll be illuminating to see what the left has to say about property rights wrt the extremists on the road.

6. http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/p4.gif/image_view
   The above refers to the August 1764 peace and friendship treaty. But, this was replaced and actual title to land was transfered.
   “A new treaty was negotiated on 9 May 1781, where the Mississaugas (the Six Nations had relinquished their claim to this land) accepted “300 suits of clothing as payment for a four-mile strip along the Niagara River from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie”. Later in 1787, this area was expanded to include Niagara Township, and portions of Stamford, Willoughby and Bertie Townships.”
   Check out also the Indian Officers Land Treaty.
   http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/8
   Check out all the Upper Canada treaties.
   As for the land title going by the women, that’s normal in a matrilineal society, where title to capital follows the female rather than male kin group line. The Huron and Iroquois were matrilineal.
   My point is only that the treaties were dealt with – and – you can’t rewrite history. And, if the indigeneous peoples have accepted the benefits and funding of Indian Affairs, then, they have de facto, accepted the treaties.

7. They’re anarchists who are paid by the government.
   Given that they choose to live outside the law, then cut em off. Withdraw any previous discussions that involve any discussion of sovereignty. Let them survive as normal, equal Canadians. Pay taxes etc.
   Me… I’m a member of Leaf Nation…

8. This life-long conservative supports the Indians (Yes, I said Indians. I cut with the “First Nations” crap when an Onendaga Indian told me “Cut with the First Nations crap!”).

9. Well stated Brian, it is too late to turn back the clock. The Indian people were defeated by the British and the French over a hundred years ago, Canada and all it’s people became British subjects – end of story.
   My Scottish ancestors were farmers on land leased from a ‘Sir’ of some sort, he kicked them off when he found out that there was more money in sheep. In 1999 the British “Sirs” issued a formal apology. End of story. I do not believe I owe my fellow citizens – of ANY race or creed, an apology – I owe them nothing because I took nothing. It was the Briish Government who defeated the Indian people – phone Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II.

10. My great-grandmother (of scandinavian decent) was born in South Dakota on a Sioux Nation reserve. She lived there until she was six, and yet she can lay no claim to anything according to the Sioux nation today. I don’t get any of this native rights business. I just know I’m sick of paying for it.

11. The dispute, I believe is about a piece of land that the Six Natons beleive is theirs, and the province of Ontario believes is not. In a different political climate, the OPP raid, and the reaction would not have happened. I don’t think its right, but I believe we can expect more of the same as native issues are not dealt with or dealt with by force.

12. I certainly believe in honoring agreements, it’s the courts lapping up all these alleged verbal agreements, writing ever expanding benefits into treaties, & ignoring expert testimony in order to reach the conclusion they wish for that gets me.
    Wasn’t it one of the original founders of the AFN that has stated that natives have been well compensated for the undeveloped land they held at the time? It’s my understanding he’s banned off of several reserves in Saskatchewan, where he was at one time a Chief on his reserve.

13. I wish the Indians would simply take their cases to court. Present whatever their evidence, make thier claims, etc.
    And whatever the courts find… be it due to lack of evidence or whatever… they should accept the ruling just as the left always tells us to. After all, they’re always saying “Because the court(s) said so, so must you capitulate”.
    Without absolute, concrete proof of their claim, then they have no case.
    And, thanks to the research of “ET”, we know they have very little in that way.
    Time to stop using the court of public opinion and committing extremist acts such as roadblocks and arson to get attention.
    Time to act like progressive, modern-day Canadians. Why any special treatment? I don’t get special treatment on the basis of race or on the basis of what family I come from. Why should anyone else?

14. BTW, not to be naive, but the courts should also stick to the rule of law, the constitution and the evidence presented by both sides. No longer will the people tolerate left-wing activism in the judiciary… no longer will exalted leftists in robes deem that one group of folks shall have rights unavailable to other groups of folks, be it on the basis of age, sex, race, and the other characteristics explicitly indicated in the Charter.
    A judge must judge, not be a social engineer!

15. Canadian Sentinel-
    That was a rich campaign moment, Martin claiming writing in property rights would lead to child labor.
    He probably confused that with China having recently written in some property rights, possibly seeing some child labor working on a CSL vessel in one of China’s shipyards.
    Sorry Paul, the child labor would have preceded the property rights, not been caused by it! He’s never been too good with cause & effect though, considering the Boxing Day shooting in Toronto to be caused by the politics of “exclusion”.

16. Sorry, the “Natives” are right this time. Prime minister Harper, give them Toronto.

17. You think its remotely possible they would take such a deal?
    Getting screwed out of Mannhatten is bad enough but jeez man,ask them to take over Toronto?
    Thats just cruel.

18. The “protesters” are simply trying to steal land from the housing developers, they have no more right to that land than anyone else in Canada.
    Taxpayers give natives over nine billion dollars a year, if that parcel of land was so important to them, how come they never bought it back? It’s not like they don’t have the money, and they don’t even have to pay tax on what they purchase.
    There are over 21,000 people living on the nearby reserve, with numbers like that, government money would be pouring in there like a waterfall.
    Those ‘protesters’ are trespassing, they should be removed and charged. Our government is failing in its duty if it caves in to threats and intimidation by a bunch of thugs.
    If stuff like this is allowed to continue, the next thing you know even our ‘free’ press will be intimidated into not publishing because some violent group might get upset. Oh, wait a sec…

19. So when do we start launching our lawsuits of discrimination? We who get to pay for everything, but are denied access to ALL areas of funding, programs, and grants because of our racial (there’s that damned word again!) origins. I wonder if (or when) the courts would get a grip on reality, instead of continuing with their “social engineering”. It sucks to be a canadian-born, middle-class taxpayer in this country! I won’t even bother to add the “male” part of it. Gender bias by the courts is a whole different direction, we’re talking about racial bias here.

20. Arrest the buggers that are breaking the law, and as for the rest tell em to get a frigging job and quit freeloading off of the rest of hardworking decent Canadians. As far as Indians owning the land. Ya lost, get over it.

21. Sounds like our Canadian Indian leaders are jealous of all the great rioting going on in the rest of the world – France’s “disaffected (Muslim car burning) youth”, America’s “undocumented (Mexican reconquista) immigrants”, the Arab world’s “cartoon rage” (worldwide sharia law enforcement). Wilf is betting that, like the rest of the world, we’ll cave in to the threat of violence and the display of nihilistic abandon. Will we be mice, or men?

22. Snookie; It just sucks being 4th generation(great great grandmother) Canadian born (non french speaking) and a white female not from Quebec and not disabled. (Or white male too). That just about excludes me from every getting a government job. Talk about hate; the term that the natives use out here is black heart that a “whitey hater” My father was the first white person born in southern Sask. His birth certificate reads: 2-12-9-3. His mother came to Canada the same month as the Ttanic sunk. How much more Canadian can you get?????? That’s not including the trace back to my mother’s greatgrandmothers birth in Ontario……How long do we really have to pay??? How much are we willing to sacrifice??????

23. Sorry, that should read same month same year as the Titanic. What can I say its FRIDAY!!!!!

24. The Indians like to call us “immigrants, even if we were born here because our ancestors came here and they were already here. Well, they always seem to forget that their ancestors were immigrants too. So what their philosophy really boils down to is: those whose ancestors got here first have more rights than those whose ancestors came later.
    That leaves me with almost no rights at all, since I’m only 2nd gen Canuck. My grandparents ran for their lives in front of the advancing Russian army at the end of WW2. They lost everything, house, farm, furniture, livestock, even clothing. Hmmmmm….I wonder if I have a valid land claim in Europe.

25. WE ARE THE PEOPLE YOUR PARENTS (and chiefs) WARNED YOU ABOUT! Indian terrorism in this country has begun. Oh, and did I forget to mention?… the communists have joined them.
    http://www.cbc.ca/sask/story/church-vandals060421.html

26. Well I can name one x-chief, family that never use to admit that they were Indian… they alway said that they were from Hawaii. As the story goes the family was chased up here from the states as horse thieves. Same band: next chief his mother is Indian, father white, left reserve got an education, came back took his mother’s name for “entitlements” became chief both are millionaire’s. Who’s rip’n who off??????

27. It’s not good for our country when gangs can blockade roads and rail lines and defy the rule of law. Makes the country seem very weak. We should not tolerate this rebellious behaviour.

28. Can the aboriginals explain how they lived underneath four kilometres of ice? That would be cool.

29. ….. Occupying property currently under someone elses ownership and an armed standoff with police…?!?
    I am sure glad they are “Allies” rather than against us. oi.
    Leaving aside who has eventual rights to the land (that what the court system and negotiation will decide), armed insurrection against governments should not be tolerated.
    I believe that some of their claim might be valid. I believe that we should sit down and talk with the Six Nations leaders and settle the dispute like friends and “allies”. And I believe it should be done after the arrest and trial of everyone involved in the tresspass and the armed insurrection against the police and the Government of Canada.
    I don’t like government any more than the next guy. But there’s gotta be a penalty for raising arms. Not a reward.

30. Barcs,
    probably the only intelligent comment i’ve read on this post. good one.

31. MaryM-
    The titanic sunk in 1912. Surely you are not trying to say there were no white people born on S. Sask before that date. If so, check your history.
    Regina’s First Born White Male was William John Percival Selby. (1883-1945) – You can see his grave on Regina’s cemetery walking tour.
    (http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=6720)
    Mary, when you decide to BS, at least make it somewhat believable to people of avereage intelligence.

32. i started reading the comments but really couldn’t be bothered. all i have to say is welcome to canada, obey our rules or get the hell out. the treaties were signed by the british government before there was a canadian government so consider yourself lucky we have tolerated your bullshit as long as we have.

33. Remember Kenewick Man? Proof that the Indians were not the first peoples here–but that when the Indians came they killed the people that were here!
    Law breakers are law breakers and should be treated as such. This is what political correctness has brought us.

34. Snookie (April 21, 11:28 p.m.):
    “So when do we start launching our lawsuits of discrimination? We who get to pay for everything, but are denied access to ALL areas of funding, programs, and grants because of our racial (there’s that damned word again!) origins. I wonder if (or when) the courts would get a grip on reality, instead of continuing with their ‘social engineering.'”
    Guess what, Snookie? The courts would throw out a discrimination lawsuit, thereby hunkering down in their particulare brand of Alice’s rabbit hole, especially with Beverley McLaghlin at the helm. The ruling would be, like the precedent set a few years ago by a married couple who went to court to say that daycare tax write-offs for co-habiting couples were much more generous than for married couples and, therefore, these tax policies were discrimatory. What was the ruling?
    Because married couples were deemed by the Charter apparatchiks to be an “historically privileged” group, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to them. In other words, the rights and freedoms of married couples, as a group, are not upheld by our Charter because of an historical “privilege.” Come again? This is a legal precedent which most Canadians have no idea about (check out the Schnackschneider-(sp?) Case; they are a couple, I believe, from Waterloo or Kitchener).
    All sorts of precedents of this sort have been established in our courts, which most Canadians have no clue about. Talk about being duped.
    I am a sixth generation Canadian of Irish/Scottish/English heritage (with, apparently, a smattering of Mohawk blood) and, of course, because of my “race,” am now completely excluded from most–all?–of the Canadian multi-culti perks.
    I guess I should feel fortunate that I am a woman–but that kind of chauvinist thinking (women reign and men suck) annoys me. I hate it: A) Because it’s untrue and B) because this kind of thinking has fuelled government/judicial policies and laws which have been astonishingly destructive to healthy and mutually constructive male-female partnerships (aka marriage) and to how families care for their children.
    I suspect, Snookie, that if we Canadians of British descent ever launched a discrimination lawsuit under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (sic), aka Charter of Perks and Fiefdoms, we’d be knocked down because we are an “historically privileged” group and, therefore, we’d be told, just like married couples, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to us.
    How many Canadians know that a whole lot of us are not “protected” under our Charter?
    It’s actually time for us to stop worrying about being called “racist” when we raise legitimate concerns about the totalitarian methods being appropriated by “historically underprivileged” groups to gain their perceived “rights and freedoms” in Canada. Native Canadians are neither above or below the law, and our laws should come down hard on them for disrupting a national railway line. This is a serious security issue. If I and a few friends, feeling disenfranchised (which I often have) decided to block the same railway line, we’d be in jail. They should go to jail and they should stay there for a long time.

35. If the Six Nations base their claim on a grant previously given by the crown, then:
    -1- The crown (that would be represented by the Canadian government) also has the authority to take away said lands and remove the occupiers.
    -2- The natives didn’t have ownership prior to being given that grant many years ago.

36. Everytime I watch the news coverage of this protest I hear native spokespeople complaining that the protesters are unarmed but police have guns. Police are supposed to have guns, if you don’t represent any threat to them, then you won’t have to worry about them being turned on you, but they should not expect the police to disarm themselves.
    How about we give the First Nations people the land that they want, anywhere in Canada, just give it back to them and then cut all gov’t funding. I think it would be more cost effective in the long run.
    Almost every country in the world was founded after conqeuring the people who originally occupied the land. In most cases the remaining people were intregrated or integrated themselves into the new country. Why do we constantly have to apologize for creating this country?

37. Natives want to literally go back centuries and cherry-pick which claims and injustices they want to rehash.
    I don’t feel that this is necessarily wrong. I however, do feel that Canada also has the right to go back and look at what we taxpayers have given the natives that wasn’t agreed to.
    When the British rewarded the Six Nations with land grants, did the agreement also allow for centuries of monies from the taxbayer given to the natives. Did the agreement assure the natives no taxation forever, with the ability to use all taxpayer infrastructure free in perpetuity?
    When we agreed to fishing and hunting rights, did we also agree with any and all new technologies allowing for vastly greater catches?
    If the natives want to go back centuries in their disputes, Canada has the right to do the same.
    The natives may find that any new agreement which rectify the inequities, may not be at all to their liking.
    William Shortreed
    Sydney

38. North Sask: It was my ommission by mistake that I did not include “Township”. He was the first white child born in that area. So…. I was not B.S’n! Sorry to disappoint you!

39. Ross and Doowleb. You hit the nail on the head with your postings. The bullshit is really getting annoying, eventually even the politicaly correct may see the light and help put a stop to it.

40. I think all non-indians joining in the protest should, as a sign of support, give all of their own property back to the Indians.
    If we let these domestic terrorists win, what’s to stop the next group of them from wanting your house? I agree with the other posts here that we have to obey, or be forced to obey, the laws in this country.

41. I believe ifr they are so set on the past go back to the past They killed the people before them and took the land away its just so annoying to listen to them bitch throw them in jail and leave them there it’s better than they deserve for destroying those before if there so set on righting past wrongs

42. My Scottish ancestors were driven off their land. They re-settled in Canada. They lost their language and their culture was absorbed into the greater culture of Canada. Thank God there was no such thing as victimhood and perpetual entitlement back then. I’d be speaking Gaelic, wearing a kilt, playing the bagpipes, and plotting to “get even”. Instead I’m a happy Canadian, part of the mainstream culture — yet free to do any/all of the above, but on my own dime.

43. The solution is dead simple.
    Undo the treaties. Canada keeps what was Crown Land prior to the signing of treaties, and First Nations and Inuit get their land back.
    Then it’s simply a matter of renegotiating the agreements.
    Hmm. Wonder what the Inuit could get for Nunavut these days on the open market?

44. When the Canadian citizens who are operating this scam take up arms in insurrection, they expose the protection racket they are running. They don’t want the land, they want us taxpayers to give them money in exchange not injuring us. That is not acceptable; it must not be allowed.

45. Rask makes a good point. If they are a separate nation then they should be treated like one. If another nation occupies our sovereign land we don’t call the OPP, we call in the military.

46. “Of course, none were signed by the future generations because they weren’t born yet.”
    Excellent point!
    If native signatures aren’t valid because the signatures did not include those of future persons not yet born, this means that present-day non-native Canadians can likewise simply renounce all treaties and obligations. Goose/gander.

47. Manitou is great!
    Death to taxpaying Canadians
    yai yai yai yai ya!

48. Nothing last forever except a government program.

49. What has been lost in all the dialogue about treaties over the last 200 or so years is that we had a collision of cultures in this land. this collision was more monumental than the Norman invasion of Britain. We had a far more advanced society bringing among other things, property right, the wheel, metalurgy, written language, etc, etc, etc,. The First nations were still wandering around this continent in animal hides and hunting with stone weapons, the only domesticated animal they had developed was the dog. Now we have to apoligize for bringing them out of the Stone Age. I’m sorry but enough is enough its time to get rid of the treaties and Indian Affairs. It took the Normans and the Saxons two hundred years to assimilate the First Nations have had their two hundred years its time to put an end to all this confrontation.

50. Agreed. It’s one think to wax romantically about a no longer possible paleolithic simplicity; it’s something else entirely to corrupt that concept into institutions and mobs of organized crime perpetrated by some citizens of Canada on other citizens of Canada.