*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.
Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds
CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ---->
  |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1979
  
votes: 5
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:22 pm Post subject: Caledonia deal's timing suspicious |
 |
|
This is the last stages -- let's hope -- of one of the most shameful episodes of our recent history. I refer to the occupation of a whole Ontario town, and the theft of several acres of land from it's rightful owner.
| Quote: | The last page of the Caledonia class-action settlement is the one that tells the shameful truth of what happened five years ago in that lovely small southwestern Ontario town.
The settlement was the result of a lawsuit against the government and the Ontario Provincial Police filed by 440 residents, 400 businesses and a handful of sub-contractors affected by the native occupation there five years ago.
The deal has been repeatedly portrayed purely as a "compensation" package since it was formally announced by the Ontario government last Friday.
The government's brief news release used carefully neutral language: The settlement is called an "agreement" which "provides compensation" for those who suffered "direct losses" during the course of "the protest."
It is, in a word, bunk. This was not a case of a government deciding out of the goodness of its heart or through some delayed attack of conscience to pay out $20 million to the many who were terrified, hurt or debilitated by the occupation. It was, rather, the settlement of a claim for negligence and malfeasance for the failure of the government and the OPP to properly protect citizens who lived near Douglas Creek Estates, a residential subdivision then under construction.
The timing, getting the nasty business out of the way well before this fall's provincial election, is arguably suspicious.
It also could herald that the next penny in this ongoing drama -what will become of the old DCE lands, which the government bought from the developers for about $16 million that summer, meaning the taxpayers have owned the land for five years, and have let go to rot -is about to drop.
Certainly, Caledonia is awash in rumours that some sort of deal is in the works. |
What are these rumours? Basically, that the lands will become a native-owned casino with a license for gambling, owned by individual natives, not a tribal group.
The background is this. The losing bidder on the Douglas Estates land caused the whole episode in an attempt to extort the land from the government. This losing bidder was a native consortium, made up of people involved in cigarette smuggling, gun smuggling, and the distribution of 'native cigarettes', tax free, all over Ontario. (It's estimated that these untaxed cigarettes make up about a third of the Ontario market.) They organized the 'protest' by hiring a group of US natives with US military experience to head it up, just like at Oka.
If these rumours are right, Douglas Estates will become a Casino.
| Quote: | But back to the last page of the agreement.
[....] [T]he government acknowledges, the "impacts experienced" were: "Delegation of policing to Six Nations (the very band some of whose members, after all, led the occupation) and subjected to frequent gunfire, loud noises, smoke, verbal assaults, personal property damage, ATVs, camouflaged protesters, high volume of traffic, checkpoints."
(Not mentioned is that at the native-run checkpoints, some residents had to show nativeissued "passports" in order to get to and from their own homes, were subjected to arbitrary searches of their vehicles and that at least two were told if they wanted to go through the line, they had to submit to a body search.)
It is, to my recollection, the first explicit acknowledgment by the Ontario government that years of denials notwithstanding -that the occupiers were peaceful and any resident who claimed otherwise was a liar and inferentially also a racist -there were indeed weapons on the site and that plenty of people living nearby heard them.
The "frequent gunfire" is ... in fact, meaning the government acknowledges that even those who suffered only "medium" impact often heard gunfire.
|
Half of the residents of Caledonia will share the award. .
| Quote: | Ultimately, the government abruptly settled the Brown and Chatwell case -the terms confidential, of course, just the way government likes it -shortly before Christmas of 2009, when a number of OPP officers were scheduled to testify.
Through the process of discovery, of course, the government knew full well these folks were going to tell the truth about the orders they had been given and the enormous frustration and embarrassment they felt about not being able to police as they ordinarily would have done, as every instinct told them to do.
There was a double standard -two-tiered or race-based policing, with natives allowed to break the law with impunity -at work in that town, in 2006 and until the present day. [Emphasis added.]
Anyone who imagines Caledonia is peaceful now is correct. It is.
And that's because non-native residents know not to even attempt to set foot on the old DCE, and so do the OPP. It is de facto Six Nations territory, won through weakness on the government side and intimidation on the other.
As ever, as at every step from the first to the latest, this story remains Ontario's greatest modern disgrace.
|
Read the whole article at: http://www.vancouversun.com/ne.....z1RvTLiuQT
But, in the meantime, the rest of us can contemplate how little law and order we have, and how easily our much lauded 'Charter Rights' can be set aside by a political party in power, when it suits their purposes.
Put differently, our so-called 'rights' exist only at the will of the government, and the Courts can't do a bloody thing about it, even if they had the inclination to try.
Perhaps Toronto Centre can explain how I am engaging in hyperbole, and it really isn't that bad ... he's part of the system that failed, so he should know. |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: Caledonia deal's timing suspicious |
|
|
And here I was, all ready to agree with you on this most shameful of events .
And well.......you just couldnt stop yourself from being an ignorant ass who lies to people.
What is your problem? Debate me, show me I am wrong, but nope, you cry and whine like a little baby.
I speak of course about this.... | Bugs wrote: | | Perhaps Toronto Centre can explain how I am engaging in hyperbole, and it really isn't that bad ... he's part of the system that failed, so he should know. |
Go on, show me where I am "part of the system"
Fialure to do so will only cement the above opinion.
Over to you now Bugs. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1979
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am reacting to the way you 'fisk' whatever I post that is critical of 'the system', most recently, the discussion in which the shooting on Yonge Street came up.
I thought I was debating you. Bear in mind, my thesis is NOT that the individual police are bad people, etc. I am focussed on bureaucratic phenomena, what happens when big organizations have 'mission creep' and start working for their own interests -- and big organizations always have their own interests -- rather than serving the public.
In that discussion, I think you saw the thrust of my argument very well, but you accused me of hyperbole, etc. on the basis that these shootings only happened once. Actually, that isn't true, it happened twice, but no pretty girl was killed in the other one. However, my point was that, under all the circumstances, there ought to have been police walking a beat on those streets at that time, and a lot of the other times. If you want to 'prevent crime', there's nothing as effective as uniformed police passing by regularly.
I don't want to revive this discussion on this thread. I only want you to understand that you claim privileged knowledge -- you'd read the police reports, and reviewed the evidence -- to make a claim that the police were just crackjack. You're making judgements, and ignore the valid points I raised. I take it that you're in the system, somehow, and protecting the police protection we get for our money.
In this article about Caledonia, the same elements exist -- the media blackout of the news, the arrogant deceit, the racial law enforcement, the arrest of people who are trying to defend their rights ... there's a lot more than what's in this article. I went on, to point out to people that are so-called Charter Rights seem to be unenforceable, and therefore, meaningless, in the present administration of justice. How do you sit with that? I was anticipating that you'd accuse me of hyperbole, and sneer once again that I don't know what I am talking about.
So, you're right, the lines you cite were a taunt. Why? Because I will defend that interpretation ... that, for the people of Caledonia, their charter rights were meaningless. It got them smeared as racists for trying to have them enforced.
This isn't because I'm a Conservative -- it's the other way around. I vote Conservative because I am alarmed at the cumulative effect of the bureaucratic phenomena that are happening all over contemporary Canada. It's true, I want to challenge the almost reflexive loyalty that Conservatives have for institutions because, at this time in our history, it's unwarranted. We are experiencing institutional failure all over the place.
I also think that its important that conservative people take these issues up, because they will probably find a better way of addressing these problems than radicals and activists.
But I am not a liar, and I don't make stuff up. I didn't lie about the other incidents, even if I got a detail or two wrong. I taunted you because, with all of these issues, you have minimized the malpractices, and gone looking for details to challenge, rather than take on the thrust of the argument.
It's true, you can say that Caledonia is an isolated event -- except that it has run for seven years, it involved the media, top politicians, top members of the judiciary, and it illustrated the decadent nature of our police and courts. In that sense, its model of the way the system really works. I want to see if you can minimize these events, and make the argument that the Charter is defending anybody from the state, when you get right down to it.
I am not reluctant to debate you, and have spent a lot of time doing just that, but I am not going to persuade you that you're wrong. You are -- are you not? -- part of the system. I debate you to show other people that you are wrong.
The fact is that the government of Ontario willfully and for political advantage, deprived the citizens of Caledonia of the peaceful enjoyment of their property. They spent a lot of public money making it OK, and they have gotten away with it. And there isn't a legal official in this land that recognizes that the innocent victims in this case are the citizens of Canada, who both have their rights eroded, and pay the damages.
If I anticipated that you would defend the regime, and IF was wrong ... I apologize. My only excuse is that you didn't see very perturbed by any of the other examples of institutional failure I have brought up before. If the Michael Bryant case makes sense to you, why would this one be any different? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
First off, great post !
| Bugs wrote: | I am reacting to the way you 'fisk' whatever I post that is critical of 'the system', most recently, the discussion in which the shooting on Yonge Street came up.
|
It is not that i disagree with your criticisms of the 'system' but the examples you use to do so. When a material fact is wrong, then the whoel premise is tainted,
| Quote: |
I thought I was debating you. Bear in mind, my thesis is NOT that the individual police are bad people, etc. I am focussed on bureaucratic phenomena, what happens when big organizations have 'mission creep' and start working for their own interests -- and big organizations always have their own interests -- rather than serving the public.
|
And I agree with you.
| Quote: |
In that discussion, I think you saw the thrust of my argument very well, but you accused me of hyperbole, etc. on the basis that these shootings only happened once. Actually, that isn't true, it happened twice, but no pretty girl was killed in the other one. However, my point was that, under all the circumstances, there ought to have been police walking a beat on those streets at that time, and a lot of the other times. If you want to 'prevent crime', there's nothing as effective as uniformed police passing by regularly.
|
Okay twice, but this is a huge city and many years go by without incident on Yonge. So lets keep that in persepctive.
As for no cop walking the beat, well, there could be any reason for that, shift change, another priority call , the simple thing is we do not know.
| Quote: |
I don't want to revive this discussion on this thread. I only want you to understand that you claim privileged knowledge -- you'd read the police reports, and reviewed the evidence -- to make a claim that the police were just crackjack. You're making judgements, and ignore the valid points I raised. I take it that you're in the system, somehow, and protecting the police protection we get for our money.
|
No I am not 'in the system' in any way. I deal with some legal inssues and have to read ONtario Reports which is a court publication of trials. I know several lawyers and one Judge.
Valid points , yes at times, but at times not and the reasoning you use is what I disagree with...again at times.
| Quote: | The fact is that the government of Ontario willfully and for political advantage, deprived the citizens of Caledonia of the peaceful enjoyment of their property. They spent a lot of public money making it OK, and they have gotten away with it. And there isn't a legal official in this land that recognizes that the innocent victims in this case are the citizens of Canada, who both have their rights eroded, and pay the damages.
|
Caledonia is one giant clusterf*** we all know that.
But it is that way because the Feds will not sttle the land claims. Yes the people of Cal are deprived, but they are not first in deprivation, the natives are.
Settle the claims and we should see the solution.
It is a chicken and egg thing.
And there is far more than anyone admits in the intricacy of whats gone on.
I am told the OPP got plain tired of busing cops in, paying them to stay in hotels, flying them in on a rotating basis that Fantino said enough (Fantino is the worst of the worst and should never have been a cop, let alone Commish)
So Caledonia I suspect we agree on, but for different reasons.
| Quote: |
If I anticipated that you would defend the regime, and IF was wrong ... I apologize. My only excuse is that you didn't see very perturbed by any of the other examples of institutional failure I have brought up before. If the Michael Bryant case makes sense to you, why would this one be any different? |
The Bryant case makes sens because the facts, no matter how one reads them , supports the case conclusion. It is no more nor less than that.
Caledonia has over a hundred years of treaties and wrongs done that the facts are distorted and unclear.
The crimes commited in the past few years are disturbing and definitely not right. But, the preceeding events are the crux, not the current events. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1979
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like the tone of this post a lot better than your previous, where you get to name-calling pretty quickly. Hopefully this will set a tone. Let me respond.
| Quote: | | It is not that i disagree with your criticisms of the 'system' but the examples you use to do so. When a material fact is wrong, then the whoel premise is tainted, |
Come on, this is not a legal brief, this is a political chat site. You should concede, you are resistant to any criticism of established authority. You go looking for what you call 'factual errors' in order to discredit. The problem is -- you refer to partial truths, atoms of the truth.
With regard to the Yonge Street shooting, good policing practice would have had a few pairs of uniformed police on the beat in the area to make sure that nothing of this sort happened. The police know what goes on on those blocks, they knew that crowds would be arriving on Boxing Day, and that the predators would likely be gathering. They also know that the most effective form of policing that you can do is to have uniformed police passing any given point every 15 minutes or less -- not to arrest wrong-doers, but to prevent crime from occurring. That's not me -- that goes back to Sir Robert Peel.
It makes sense to me that this illustrates an organizational failure. Cops are now important people. They make $100,000 a year and better, and they are more concerned about their RRSPs than in trudging along Yonge Street as beat cops. It's an organizational problem -- the culture of the police force is changing. They now sit in idling cars, waiting for a radio dispatch to tell them of a reported crime, whereupon they drive over, 20 minutes after the crime has been committed, and make reports designed to protect the insurance company from the claims of the victim. They don't seek the perp down, generally, and they don't normally recover stolen property. That's policing in Toronto.
They don't stand out in the weather, and walk a beat. That's my point. It has nothing to do with shift changes, or other calls.
================================
But look, about Caledonia, you are just wrong.
| Quote: | Caledonia is one giant clusterf*** we all know that.
But it is that way because the Feds will not sttle the land claims. Yes the people of Cal are deprived, but they are not first in deprivation, the natives are.
Settle the claims and we should see the solution.
It is a chicken and egg thing. |
Point by point: there was no land claim on the Douglas Estates lands at the time of the occupation, or before. The previous owners were the Ontario Government. Before the sale was completed, there was an extensive search of records. The land had been 'expropriated' for a road allowance in the 1880ies, I believe. Beyond that, the Tribal Council OK'd the transfer, and an anthropologist searched the land for cemetery sites.
Secondly, the issue went to court, and the court found in favour of the developer. The natives were ordered off the land. That is why the police raided, and were later chased off. ($100,000 a year cops don't risk their lives.) The court went further, and demanded to be shown cause why the previous court order wasn't obeyed, but they were simply ignored!
Third, when the Developer went to his insurance company for compensation, the Ontario government bought the land from the developer. The insurance company would not pay on the basis that the occupation was a civil insurrection, which wasn't covered. Rather than allow this decision to be tested in court, McGuinty and gang paid off the developer, and his bank.
Fourth, these kinds of occupations are going on all through the area, and no construction is allowed to go forth without payment being made to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute. Google them, if you like. The illegality of their claims is reviewed in this document.
http://caledoniavictimsproject.....easons.pdf
This reference should give you all you need to know about the murders attempted, and beatings dished up, while police watched.
http://caledoniavictimsproject.....t-proxies/
These conflicts have gone on in Brantford since the Douglas Estates occupation, stopping any major construction job, and threatening economic development in the whole area. All of it, of course, has a news blackout in media outlets other than the local news.
Fifthly -- if there is such a word -- this happened at the time of the British takeover, and you know how the British are. We're talking about Regency England here, when the colonial fraudsters were trying to make the province into another Ireland.
It may surprise you to know that they were doing the same things to white settlers as they did to natives. Check out the sanitized histories of Thomas Talbot, for example, if you doubt me. Whole groups of settlers, arrived from Scotland to find their deal changed. Instead of getting 200 acres, they were getting 50, Talbot was notorious for registering land titles in pencil, so he could erase names and give the improved land to someone else. He would get the road work done, and then give the settlers poor land that was not on the road they had built! I don't see any groups getting a mandate to suspend the Charter, and routine law and order in those cases. I assume it's because they are of the wrong race.
By the way, the Iroquois got their land from the Crown, in fee simple, and have no aboriginal right to the land in the Grand River Valley. The original promise -- the Haldiman Tract -- was given to them, and when part of the tribe decided they liked land on the east end of Lake Ontario better, they also got land there. Thus we have Oka, the model for Caledonia.
An interesting sidelight: After the Revolutionary War, the Mohawks realized they could no longer live in their traditional way. So, they dropped their war-like ways. They decided to become farmers and artisans, and Joseph Brant himself sold the land around Kitchener to German farmers, hoping to learn about agriculture from them. Brantford was a Mohawk town, but there were a surprising number of white settlers in the area.
| Quote: | | The first occupants of the Grand River Six Nations were a group of Mohawks led by Joseph Brant (“Thayendanegea”). By 1788, they had established a village of 400 near an important crossing point on the river, soon to be known as Brant’s Ford. The Mohawk Village soon prospered, as it was situated on the main Indian trail between the Detroit and Niagara Rivers. The Six Nations Reserve was formally created January 14, 1793. |
http://www.anglican.ca/relatio.....institute/
Except that it wasn't a 'reserve' in the modern senses, it was land reserved for His Majesty's native allies in the Revolutionary War. There was a "mechanic's institute" set up for Mohawks, many of whom were Anglicans, so they could become artisans and skilled labourers. This became the model for what became the notorious residential schools.
My point is that these natives were immigrants to Canada, and were expected to become citizens in a British colony. None of this background has anything to do with the Douglas Estates occupation, and the extortions which followed. That's the falsehood that is distributed by the media. This never was a land dispute. It was a case of Goofy McGuinty -- who, at the time, was abusing the law to persecute Harris for another police fuck up at Ipperwash -- and who refused to enforce law and order, or to back up the courts.
==========================
You and I will never agree about Michael Bryant. Suffice it to say, I cannot imagine anyone but a senior civil servant, and a legal insider, being treated this way. It is clear what Bryant ought to have done. He ought to have pulled over, and phoned the police. They were, after all, sitting all around, in idling cars, waiting for such a call. Instead, he committed how many offenses, driving at high speed down the wrong side of Bloor Street in a raging frenzy, determined to wipe the kid off his car by crashing him into something. And all his friends in the administration of law sagely wondered how to fix this up, and they succeeded. Bottom line.
You doubt me? -- you try something like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Caledonia deal's timing suspicious |
|
phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB |
|
