The Ipperwash Inquiry continues Aug 15th

I haven't read all those links, but I've kept up with the tragedy. I'll tell another story, although it might be in your links, but here in KW, Dudley George's brother was brought in by the KW Youth Collective to give a talk. When he was leaving, he was stopped 8 times by the local police for "traffic infractions" which ranged from driving too slow, to not signalling 500 metres before a turn, etc. Yay Canada.

There will be no justice.The law always protects itself.Cops are the enemy.They are the Gestapo for the big boys.Lots of them love "whacking"indians.They love playing GI JOE.

I did read your earlier post, Marcarc, about George's brother. It's so hard for me to imagine this kind of thing can happen. Spud. I know a few Police Officer's and have a few in my family whom I could hardly call "the enemy." They are people doing their job, like the rest of us. I am not saying they are perfect, there are always bad apples in any occupation. But I don't think even one of the could stand by and do NOTHING when a man has been shot. I could be wrong, and I will ask. Maybe they would under pressure from the premier and peers. I don't know. But, I think the people involved in the Ipperwash shootings should be prosecuted, if not, we should not let it go until justice is served.

I doubt that we will ever know really what happened that night, and that someone should die unnecessarily is terrible. We must ask however what would happen if the (white) residents of a small community took over a Provincial park, burnt some of the buildings down and refused to leave. Irregardless of the claims that this group had regarding this property their actions were against the law and the police were only trying to do their job. What would have been your reaction if this property had been your local municipal park and the building your community hall? The native community seem to feel that they are above the law when it comes to their “claims” of land, water or hunting & fishing “rights”, many groups (but not all) seem to want to take what they perceive to be their “rights” without regard for those other (white) communities that are affected. There seems to be little doubt that many years ago these peoples were “taken” by the governments of the day, but two wrongs do not make it right! If a native lays claim to a piece of property (for whatever reason) that your family has occupied and farmed since (say) 1750 or thereabouts should you meekly step back and hand it over? I am all for equality but from where I sit it seems that many natives groups are now taking advantage of the rest of us reluctance to “make waves” with the “poor hard done by” natives. If some of you view that as racist, so be it. It is not, but any comment nowadays opposing the native point of view is often called such.

Those comments are not racist, but similar ones are made by racists. First, you have to realize that treaties are signed between nations, they are not federal-provincial, or federal-municipal issues. So let's change that example, say a group of canadians went across the border to the US and took over a town? What do you think the reaction would be? The natives, of course, do not do that, WE do that and we do that because we have more guns than they do. This was THEIR land, and is now part of a border dispute, one which the government conveniently continues to ignore. YOU say that trying to defend their own land is somehow 'wrong'. That's an interesting view. If natives were moving to Toronto and blockading off parts of the city, then we could at least have the argument that people are involved. Many treaties clearly stipulate areas of cities as being accessible to natives, but natives, quite nicely I think, never appear to be horribly greedy. They take one park or small plot and basically say 'enough'. This is exactly what happened in Oka, where it was their land but was being used for a golf course. Ask yourselves another question, what would be the result had a native man killed a police officer? Well, we already KNOW what it would be because history provided that example. It inspired a countrywide rebellion against natives who were already oppressed. In Oka natives that weren't even involved were pelted with huge rocks, resulting in two deaths and many injuries but no charges. We can actually quite easily answer your question about 'what would happen' had whites done this by looking right up the highway to Hamilton. Environmental groups, which joined native groups, set out to block the building of the red hill expressway. While environmentalists are also no friends of the police nobody was shot, and there were actually few arrests. What happened was various court appeals were made and even some nominal concessions were granted to the protestors. The situation was dealt with in a far more civilized manner, thanks in part to Ipperwash which made most people ill at the thought of their oppressive state police tactics. Every sensitivity which 'could' be granted was given, this was primarily because so many 'white' people were involved. We know this because of what happened at Ipperwash when only natives were involved.

"This was THEIR land, and is now part of a border dispute, one which the government conveniently continues to ignore. YOU say that trying to defend their own land is somehow 'wrong'. That's an interesting view. " This is my point! THEY say it IS their land, yes it WAS at one time theirs, it is under dispute, but it is/was not proven in court to be theirs NOW under Canadian or Ontario law. If I have a claim to a peice of my nebours land am I then to just go in and take it? Am I to ignore fishing / logging / hunting limits set by our governments just because I belive I have a "right" to do so?

But they are THERE, they didn't drive up from Kansas and say 'by the way this is our land'. Canada breaks international law time and again, and in fact has been listed as a Human Rights abuser for its treatment of natives by the United Nations. You are essentially saying that a culture can dominate another as long as it is stronger and can push them into a box, and when they move out of it claim they are breaking a law. The government, of course, could just make a law that says they have no right to be on reservations because it's federal land so they have to get off. So what? You CAN"T make laws over sovereign nations, try going south and telling an american that they're under arrest for breaking a canadian law, you'd be laughed out of the country-that's why they have extradition. So the analogy isn't you going into your neighbours house, it's your neighbour coming into yours. Basically your argument is it WAS your land, now we've taken it, so, well, there you go. That just doesn't wash, and every group of people has a right to their land, I would MAYBE argue differently if our government said "OK well let's sit down and work out these treaty rights". That is something it refuses to do, there are literally hundreds of backdated treaty claims which the government refuses to discuss. So our government has absolutely no moral leg to stand on, we don't even allow them their own government on their tiny reserves. This is as close to South Africa as you're going to find. When people demand access to land which not only was theirs, but IS theirs by treaties that were signed by OUR government it's pretty hard to dispute. They inflicted no violence on anybody, there were no guns or suicide bombers, yet one of them is killed and the argument is "too bad, but we can't let them get out of line". Yes, that IS bordering on racism-but of a very specific kind. But if that floats your boat, well, I've noticed people are pretty set in their ways.

OK, try this. I come to your house, and ask to borrow your truck. I'll give it back when I'm done. PROMISE But I don't. I just ignore the fact that I said I'd give it back. You want it back, too bad. You know I'm bigger than you, you know I'm not going to make it easy on you. But it is yours, so one day you decide, I'm just going to take what is rightfully mine.You see the truck, and you get in and try to drive it away. I catch you. I won't let you have it. I believe it's mine now. Me and my buddies surround you. You refuse to get out. There is a stand-off. You just happen to get shot, and you don't live. Oh well...10 years later your family is still waiting for justice. Meanwhile, we are all running around free. But, it's no big deal. Your family doesn't have the clout that mine has. Nothing will come of it. ---------------------------------------- I understand the Police were doing their job, but they don't shoot people and run do they? Is that in the job description? I'd like to see where that is written. As for the ambulance...hmmmm DO NOT PICK UP INDIANS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOT. Never heard of that one before. The government made land treaties with the Natives that they no longer want to abide by. Not only did they take the best land at the time and send them onto reservations where they have no means to hunt for their food. And we promise if they go we will feed them. But they half starve to death waitng for that food to come. You can say all you want about them being "hard done by" and lessening their worth. That is your right. But if it was happening to you, you might think differently. They were FORCED onto these reservations in the first place. It's not like they wanted them. They wanted to live among us, as equals. But, we couldn't have that now could we? Goodness no! So we group them together and gave them pieces of land to stay out of way. And now we want that land back.

Well said FootPrints.Well said. These goon terrorists of the OPP,did they not also beat Cecil George to death.He was later revived by by medical personal. just doing their job?Yeah. Wonder hoe many cops would actually pass a psych evaluation.....or fail one?

Runciman calls Ipperwash mugs 'macho stupidity' Updated Tue. Jan. 10 2006 3:48 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff T-shirts and coffee mugs made by police officers that mocked the Ipperwash standoff were "macho stupidity," according to former solicitor general Bob Runciman. "I do want to say how personally offended I was by that, and I guess shocked as well," Runciman told the Ipperwash Inquiry on Tuesday. "It was an exercise in macho stupidity." The items were reported in an internal OPP investigation a year after the 1995 incident in which Dudley George, 38, was killed by a police sniper during a raid to remove him and other land claim protestors. Runciman, who was in charge of provincial law enforcement during the standoff, said the memorabilia was insensitive to both the native culture and the George family. Investigators said a dozen Team Ipperwash '95 mugs with an arrow printed over the OPP's logo were made. They also reported that several dozen T-shirts with the emergency and tactical response team's logos were made with a horizontal white feather over them. Aboriginal groups have called the items disgusting and disrespectful since the symbols represent dead warriors. "With respect to the (OPP) insignias and the misuse and abuse (of native symbols)… that was a very upsetting period for me," Runciman said. Although upset, he said he was not involved in any disciplinary action because it would have been inappropriate coming from the solicitors general's office. Runciman, who is now the Ontario Progressive Conservative justice critic, has denied claims that there was political meddling into the standoff. "A lot of people have drawn conclusions about political direction and the OPP. In my view, that never did occur," he said. Runciman is the 96th witness out of the 101 registered to testify at the inquiry. Mike Harris is number 99 and is expected to testify late next week. Harris' involvement in the police response is a key issue at the inquiry. In late November, former Ontario attorney-general Charles Harnick testified that former premier Mike Harris said he wanted "the fucking Indians out of the park." Harnick's testimony alleged that Harris used the profanity in a meeting just hours before police shot and killed George on Sept. 6, 1995. <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060110/runciman_inquiry_060110/20060110?hub=TorontoHome">continued</a>