Wow. This small article packs a punch, and should wake up a lot of Canadians to a govt. that is either geopolitically naive (if you want to be super- polite) or selling our nation's lands. I favour the latter explanation - it's Canadians that are geopoltically naive due to incompetent education institutions captured by the woke mob.
I am an enormous fan of the writing and research of Michelle Stirling. Canadians are being conned by their own governments on the issue of UNDRIP as well as that of endless historical deceit and native reparations. My favourite passage from the article: “Kimberly Murray is a lawyer. She should surely appreciate that murder…or on a grand scale…genocide, is a criminal offense. The first step in a criminal matter is to immediately secure the alleged crime scene, open a criminal investigation, question the witnesses, gather evidence and begin excavations to determine what is at these locations.” In Kamloops there has never been a police investigation. The genocide lie is to remain state mantra.
The cancellation of the RCMP investigation at Kamloops sticks in my craw like a persistent fishbone lodged in the throat. It is the ground zero of the entire fiasco.
what was the stated reason for the cancellation? was there a reason given? surely the police cancelling an investigation would have the opposite effect, one would think, indicating there was nothing to investigate. right?
Murray Sinclair intervened with Parliament saying the RCMP was being too overbearing or intimidating. Trudeau's self made policy of respecting the indigenous, compelled him to take the unprecedented action of giving the band the right to do their own investigation of a crime scene with over 200 alleged murdered children. By contrast, Robert Pickton's pig farm had a mere 33 victims and the investigation lasted two years. I am sure that the RCMP believed there was nothing to investigate and were relieved of that obligation but by ignoring legal protocol has been a costly SNAFU for Canada. This resonates well with Oliver Hardy's famous catch phrase, used in the Laurel and Hardy movies, when he says, "here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley".
McMurtry! You are so dumb. Somebody must have "educated" you as a school teacher. YOU, (stupid), are the government. What you call "governments" are your civil servants. When you can't distinguish your servants from your governors that means you are "dumb". And you still haven't showed up to Frances Widdowson's website where you gave that interview. I have some Socratic questions for you at that website.
Jim! Since you liked this stupidly-insulting-intentionally-provocative post, get over to Frances Widdowson's website. I want to speak logically, rather than rhetorically, with you.
Another quick correction: Frances Widdowson (not Francis). Also, while it's true that Sarah Beaulieu conducted the GPR work at Kamloops IRS between May 21 and May 24, 2021 (so May 22-23 in your article is partly correct), it wasn't until the band's announcement on May 27 that they made their claims about 215 graves. The reason I make this distinction is that the band did have several days between when the GPR was completed and when their press release was finalized (and, ostensibly, "leaked"). In her interim report, Kimberly Murray tries to give the impression that Kamloops had no time for thoughtful reflection before releasing the news.
It occurred to me to go back and look at how many views that Annett YouTube video got: nearly 5,000 to date. Only 353 "likes"; no thumbs down (hmmm). 59 comments (to date), all apparently from supporters. Annett's channel has nearly 26,000 "subscribers" (which could be a very scary number, unless some of those followers are just "crazy-curious"). But out of nearly 5000 views, to get only 353 likes suggests a poor ratio, no?
I'm only starting to notice these kind of metrics, being something of a social media naif.
Well, if this doesn't make you depressed as a Canadian I don't know what will. jeebus. What can be done about it? No political party appears to want to touch anything indigenous related in any way.
Don't be depressed. Be exhilarated and encourage Hymie to do a serious argument/indictment (of Murray Sinclair) at Court with some lawyer's counsel. Would you believe a metaphorical Obi Wan Kinobe vs. Jaba The Hut (at the trough) go to a Canadian Court of Law with one Light Saber blazing (Kinobe/Rubenstein) and another "out brief candle" (Hut/Sinclair) blown out at Court. Hymie couldn't lose, unless some Court Justice publicly disobeyed a statute "on the record" of a legal proceeding. A guy like McCrae would see that de-facto disobedience to a Statute in a "twinkling" of his legal saber "eye".
I can't help but think that if there ever was a time for a plague of locusts to descend on parliament, now would be the perfect time. Just think of the message it would send.
I don’t know anything about legal process, so I’m not going to try to argue with commenter Kevin Byrne, but it seems to me his exhortations here contain a lot of “famous-last-words” type stuff: “Hymie and McRae cannot rationally lose to Sinclair and friends in a law court.” “Hymie couldn't lose, unless some Court Justice publicly disobeyed a statute …” He can't legally lose in a Court of Law, unless the Court Justice is [corrupt] . . . With McCrae as his counsel, that team cannot legally lose.” Maybe Kevin hasn’t noticed that a lot of things are not playing out according to Hoyle in Canada these days.
In any case, I don’t know why he's so eager to put a target on Hymie’s back. “He can’t lose” – unless some crazed activist were to shoot him on his way in to the courthouse!
It isn’t Hymie’s responsibility to go to the guillotine. If there’s a legal case to be made, I suspect it will have to be made by the populace – by all of us. I don’t know what that means. A delegation? A petition? A class action?
OAN: I’m not going to try to argue with commenter Kevin Byrne
BYRNE:- Then you proceed to argue fairly well. But you really shouldn't say one thing and then contradict yourself in the same sentence. Guys like me love to look for such things. To your argument, quote
JOAN: it seems to me his exhortations here contain a lot of “famous-last-words” type stuff: “Hymie and McRae cannot rationally lose to Sinclair and friends in a law court.” “Hymie couldn't lose, unless some Court Justice publicly disobeyed a statute …” He can't legally lose in a Court of Law, unless the Court Justice is [corrupt] . . . With McCrae as his counsel, that team cannot legally lose.”
BYRNE: They look like accurate quotes to me. But you're not focusing closely enough on the word "rationally". Proceed to the conclusion of your argument.
JOAN: Maybe Kevin hasn’t noticed that a lot of things are not playing out according to Hoyle in Canada these days.
BYRNE: Hoyle is bridge rules, right? Don't you know that there are rules of Court and our Rule of Law, which also contains/IS rules. The first legal rule I ever learned was that in cases of alleged [Never proved! It can't be legally done!] collusion, the onus is entirely upon the impartial officers of the Court. Collusion essentially means "to deceive the court". So it is the DUTY of all impartial Officers of The Court to prevent the occurrence of collusive cases. There is no defense to such cases. That is why Socrates, Christ, Joan of Arc and many "lessers" have been rail-roaded at Court entirely contrary to "Hoyle" and the rule of law. It is also why most people eventually realize how egregiously unjust those cases were, after the collusive cases were decided. e.g. Joan's Court Record, before they burned her at the stake, was one of the major grounds for her canonization as a Saint. It was basically:- Only divine inspiration could have provided an illiterate with the answers and arguments by which she refuted everything thrown at her by crooked ecclesiastical lawyers and judges.
But you don't need to be Joan of Arc, Joan, in order to understand 2 simple legal rules from The Interpretation Act of Canada which read:
11. The expression "Shall" is to be construed as imperative and the expression "May" as permissive.
24. (5) Where a power is conferred or a DUTY imposed, on the holder of an office, the power may [permissive legal construction; power is permitted KB] be exercized and the DUTY SHALL [imperatively] BE PERFORMED by the person for the time being charged with the execution of the powers and DUTIES of the office.
Since Justices hold Judicial Office and lawyers are Court Officers, they are persons "for the time being charged with the execution of the powers and DUTIES of the office [Offices in the case more than one lawyer at Court.] So anyone who says COLLUSION to them, in open court, forces a DUTY upon them --- which SHALL be performed. Back to you Joan:
JOAN: In any case, I don’t know why he's so eager to put a target on Hymie’s back. “He can’t lose” – unless some crazed activist were to shoot him on his way in to the courthouse!
REFUTATION: When one lays an information before a Court Justice, that is the absolute beginning of a criminal action, unless one chooses to go the police route by writing a complaint to the police and attempting to get them to lay an information. But were one to go directly to Court, in accordance wth Section 504. C.C.C., no activist would even know Rubenstein or his Counsel was on his/their way to Court to lay it. After that, the Crown or any judge/justice to whom Hymie or his counsel speak has the DUTY upon him or her SELF to satisfy Hymie and his counsel that no one colluded at Kamloops. Thus all impartial Officers-Of-The-Court, including Court Clerks, become painted targets for Hymie and his counsel --- most of all the 3 LAWYERS of the TRC --- Sinclair, Littlechild and Murray. They are the targets which Rubenstein and his lawyer would "paint". Not him. I'm trying to do the same thing with both Widdowson and McMurtry.
But I think they are a lot "slower" than Dr. Rubenstein. I'm not all that "eager". I painted Sinclair at 2 Canon Law Tribunals because we are both baptized Catholics --- over a year ago. But the clerical judges have been "dodging", unsuccessfully, since then.
I say, unsuccessfully, because we have a "thing" in the Roman Catholic Church called the "Pauline Privilege", which means one may (permissively) appeal to Caezar at the outset of any Canon Law case. Our version of "Caezar" is Pope Francis and he's more WOKE than any "woke" thing in North America. "Woke" for Jesuit Clerics is called "Liberation Theology" which is, essentially "Marxism for Clerics". So, I'm in no "rush" to get anywhere near a Liberation Theologian --- even if he wears a white cassock and has "red socks" --- which a Jewish colleague of mine once called the, then, Pope, "Old Red Socks".
This Hungarian Jewish colleague [He a pathologist. Me a technologist.] knew I was a Catholic, so he said: "Fff The Pope.", with a provocative gleam in his eye and a truculently curled lip. But he didn't know that I was Irish Catholic until I burst out laughing. We got to be friendly acquaintances thereafter --- knowing that technologists must defer to pathologists even when they "harass" our religious betters. The old "Red Socks" to whom he referred never said "genocide" when he visited the First Nations Folks during his papal tour --- sometime in the 1980's.
In conclusion, Joan. You are just as competent as Hymie to do the collusion thing before any "Court" which has jurisdiction with respect to all 4 TRC colluders. Hymie lives in Manitoba, which is the primary reason for "targeting" him to go after Sinclair in a secular tribunal as distinct from a Canon Law Tribunal --- where the worst they can do to you is to excommunicate you. Sinclair has already done that to himself. I digress too much. Back to you for your last words:-
JOAN: It isn’t Hymie’s responsibility to go to the guillotine. If there’s a legal case to be made, I suspect it will have to be made by the populace – by all of us. I don’t know what that means. A delegation? A petition? A class action?
BYRNE: You are almost absolutely correct Joan. It means an information. A petition is an application where no relief is applied for against another person. That wouldn't work. Murray Sinclair is not a "class". That wouldn't work. But you could get a delegation together and lay an information. Anyone may (permissive construction) do that. That's what being equal before and equal under the law means. Should I start "gad-flying" you as well as Hymie, McMurtry and Widdowson?
Okay then, Kevin – an “information,” if that’s the best approach. But you know, I have a feeling that any kind of action against specific people (such as the TRC commissioners, as you urge) would be met with knee-jerk accusations of racism and a lot of Canadians would therefore not get behind it (i.e. even if the action succeeded and the outcome became public). On the other hand, we probably COULD muster broad support for an action that didn’t accuse any individual people, but instead demanded, say, a criminal investigation of the Kamloops putative burials to confirm or refute claims of murders. Even some Indigenous folks and their staunchest allies are wanting to see this resolved through excavation of some of those GPR hits. I presume the challenge in that case would be to the Kamloops band, or maybe the RCMP (for backing off when they should have persevered).
BTW, I didn’t really follow your lesson on collusion, but there’s no point trying to school me on the law; I’ve got too much else on my plate, and too little intellectual interest.
Yes, you do digress too much. And no, I don’t want you to start gadflying me. If the people you are currently pestering aren’t responding to your urgings, then perhaps you should take that as their answer.
You don't lay an information before "a lot of Canadians" --- just before 1 Justice. Of course you, quote "didn't really follow your/my lesson on collusion" because collusion means "to deceive (legally experienced) Courts" and you have "too much on your plate" and "too little intellectual interest" to be schooled "on the law". Since you admit to being an intentional legal ignoramous, then what is your legal or "intellectual" ground for being annoyed with people like Murray Sinclair or other indigenous activists? Maybe they are perfectly in "the right", both legally and morally. Then your only legal or moral ground for opposing them would be the "racism" criticism which you seem to be afraid of. Don't worry that I might "gadfly" you further. One can neither beat nor bite an intellectually dead horse.
What are we to do? Encourage Hymie to indict Murray Sinclair. Hymie knows Aristotelian Syllogisms. The major premises of legal arguments are statutes. There is no such thing as a "false" statute. The minor premises are the TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but THE TRUTH. When your major and minor premises are both true, then your conclusion [called a judgment or verdict at Court] is both true and sound.
Hymie and McRae cannot rationally lose to Sinclair and friends in a law court. That is why Sinclair will not respond to McRae's challenge and why Murray wants it made illegal to challenge the "genocide" thesis. Sinclair is not a stupid lawyer. He's just an obviously incompetent evidence fabricator and he has to rely upon "dopes" like Sarah Boileau, Kimberly Murray and Roseanne Casimir to "carry" the truth function for him in public arguments. Anyone or all 3 of those "girls" will fold like an accordion with any competent lawyer crossing them in open Court --- given all the dumb things they've said.
Keep encouraging Hymie --- even when you want to criticize him. He deserves to be a "star" in open Court along with his legal friend McRae.
You are doing important work, keep it up. You have made a strong case that conflict lies before us. I totally agree that the radicals are on the march, and the normies are asleep.
A very powerful article that reads like a "whodunit" detective novel. Michelle's article contains elements that I have never read before and suggests conspiratorial underpinnings that are hard to ignore. We are all well aware of the obvious "Fifth Columnists" in our ranks. In our blind indifference to our own national welfare, we elected them to Parliament and they showed their fealty by accusing their country of the most heinous crime in the civilized world, genocide. As the guttural idiom says, "you can't make this shit up," but in Canada, you don't have to. It's a daily reality. Michelle is absolutely right when she says, "one side is determined not to give up, the other asleep". We have definetly become somnambulant to the dangers that confront us, a threat, that in no small part, is related to a comatose P.M. and sycophantic parliament. Just remember as the title of Juliette Kayyem's book suggests, "the devil never sleeps".
And now you are "woke/awake" too, Kemosabe --- a different sort of woke. Hi, Oh SILVER haired Rubenstein. May he be your true LONE RANGER when/if he wakes from his Aristotelian slumber. By the bye, Nice Post above.
Finally, a Stirling (forgive the pun) article. Her other articles had major and minor defects reflected in the titles of her articles. But this third article is perfect.
Fabricating bogus "evidence" of a genocide is a Section 137. Criminal Code offence. When it is done in "order" to defraud the public, that is a Section 380. (fraud) criminal code offence. Accusing others of crimes, in "order" to cover-up one's own crime, is called public mischief, contrary to Sect. 140. of the Criminal Code, when the complaint is made to a peace officer or "The Crown". If such behavior occurs in concert with an Attorney General, the offence is called "concealing and compounding" an indictable offence, contrary to Section 141. of Canada's criminal code.
As Michelle noted, Kimberly Murray is a lawyer. She was the executive director of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from 2010 - 2015. Murray is as guilty of fabricating evidence of a genocide in order to suppress evidence of simply (but egregiously) neglected graveyards and cemeteries (in order to defraud the public) as are Wilton Littlechild, Murray Sinclair and Marie Wilson --- the 3 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners who received perfect evidence of neglected graveyards and cemeteries in 2015, courtesy of Dr. Scott Hamilton of Lakehead University in his report entitled "Where are the Children Buried?". [https://nctr.ca/records/reports/#highlighted-reports]
The report is still up at the National Centre For Truth and Reconciliation with all 3 of the first so-called "discoveries" on page 15 of The Report. The missing (due to neglect) grave markers were known before 2015 but documented for the TRC with Hamilton's Report. That the markers were missing because of decay and neglect is the evidence which has been suppressed in order to defraud the public, who never heard or read Dr. Scott Hamilton's mention of cemeteries for all of Kamloops ("discovery" #1), Cowessess ("discovery" #2) and St. Eugene's at Cranbrook ("discovery" #3) --- all made on page 15 of Hamilton's Report --- 6 years before the so-called "discoveries".
Since Hymie Rubenstein and Michelle Stirling seem to have "kissed and made up"; given he is now publishing her 2nd article (after "dissing" her first article) about T.B. as a "forgotten plague" [certainly a well known and not forgotten "plague" to the 3 TRC Commissioners and their Executive Director, Kimberly Murray]; and they also have several lawyers "on board" [Brian Giesbrecht, Peter Best, D. Barry Kirkham Q.C. and Former Manitoba attorney general Jim McCrae ], they are approaching the "critical mass" of The Supreme Court of Canada. With the 4 lawyers, and 2 historians [Rubenstein and Stirling] you have 6 individuals who are equal before and under the law with the 9 Supreme Court Justices.
The question is "equally what"? They are all equally different because they have different functions in a Court of Law. Rubenstein and Stirling are the sorts of individuals, usually called "expert witnesses", who have the TRUTH function in a Court of Law. Neither judges nor lawyers have that function. Judges and lawyers are actual "inferiors" in the truth function --- called matters or questions of fact at Court, with Rubenstein and Stirling "superiors" in truth. However the lawyers, though "inferior" in the truth function, are the "superiors" of Rubenstein and Stirling in the ARGUMENT function of a Court, which is called the question of law, at Court. Anyone may have heard either a real or fictional lawyer say "Objection, (the answer is) argumentative, M'Lord or Your Honour." In short, "truth" people can't argue at Court. The lawyers have that function.
When one integrates an ARGUMENT (the lawyer function) with TRUTH (the witness function), the result is a JUDGMENT, which is the Judicial Function in a Court of Law. Judges/Justices are "inferiors" in the truth and the argument functions of a Court of Law, but "superiors" in judgment.
Of course, everyone is required to use their own judgment [but much better the "Law's" judgments] as to whether or not they are going to lie or tell the truth at Court (as witnesses). Again, lawyers have to use their own judgments as to what ARGUMENT/s they'll make at Court and what questions to ask witnesses in order to either "elucidate the truth" [prosecutors] or to cast "reasonable doubts" [defense counsel] on the alleged truth of witnesses at Court.
But IN SUM, the respective "superiority" and "inferiority" of all parties [direct party "eye witnesses" or corroborating/refuting 3rd party witnesses; and indirect party lawyers and judges] to a legal proceeding makes ALL PARTIES "equal" in the ultimate Court Judgment --- equally necessary to form a rational legal judgment by 3 types of necessarily independent parties [1. Truth, 2. Argument and 3. Judgment parties] in a legal TRIBUNAL [ a 3-in-one sort of "unity"].
I say that the 6 people [4 lawyers and 2 historians] are "APPROACHING the critical mass" of a Supreme Court of Canada because 5 Court Justices are a Supreme Court Quorum for a formal legal judgment. Six individuals are "superior" to that 5 Court quorum of Canada's Supreme Court. However the 6 are vastly "inferior" in the number (at least 2) of lower Court Judgments, required to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which, of course, controls its own docket. But Sinclair, Littlechild, Wilson and Kimberly Murray would not survive an indictment by the worst Crown Prosecutor imaginable with the 6 people I have mentioned above as witnesses for the prosecution.
It is said that the only thing required for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. They don't even have to be "good". Average historians, average lawyers and average citizens are more than enough to convict sleaze-balls, like Murray, Sinclair, Littlechild and Wilson of fraud and evidence fabricating ACTS which are CONTRARY to the Rule of Law --- not the rulings of lawyers or judges --- the RULE OF LAW, to which all equal citizens are SUBJECT.
Thanks Kemosabe. Does this make me the Lone Ranger?
Actually, if Rubenstein convinces McRae to indict Murray Sinclair in a Manitoba Court, or McRae convinces Rubenstein to indict Sinclair, then those 2 guys will be Canada's almost "alone" Rangers. They can easily do it. My wife's lawyer didn't last one question in my first Court case --- which was over 30 years ago.
But philosophers can't "morally" do adversarial debate. We get to do the truth function on Affidavit and the argument function on documents called pleadings. So "we" have the correct judgment from the "get go" of any Court proceeding. Justices are extraordinarily "slow" at catching up, after being deceived (by lawyers). They don't listen to most litigants --- frankly because most litigants are liars, ignorant of the law, or both.
I filed my Canon Law Case against those clowns last year because both Sinclair and myself are baptized Catholics. But my Church is "slow". John Paul II "apologized" to Galileo during his pontificate, and Galileo was as guilty as hell of disobeying a Papal Order. He wasn't guilty of being wrong about Heliocentrism --- just guilty of disobeying a papal order during the so-called Reformation. One must be extraordinarily persistent to win any kind of argument in my Church --- usually it is one's 5th generation "descendant" or "advocate" that actually settles a Canon Law argument after generations of liars have finally given up the argument.
Hi-Oh SILVER haired Rubenstein (or McRae) developing some testicles in their old ages, Kemosabe. And I'm still waiting to read your complaint to the cops. But you may be as "shy" as Canadian Bishops!!! FAUGH!
Trudeau can't tear this country apart. He is one politician who wears blackface and who is entirely ignorant of the law. I'll give him nice hair, nice socks and a nice-looking family. Those things don't count at Court.
All you have to do is convince Hymie to make a "legal play" in concert with his legal friends. He and Sinclair both live in Manitoba and a former Attorney General and lawyer named McRae (former Attorney General of Manitoba) has already publicly challenged Sinclair. Now all they have to do is indict Sinclair in a Manitoba Court. Alternatively they might try to convince a policeman or Crown prosecutor to do the indictment. But both Rubenstein and McRae are vastly better arguers than any policemen or overworked/underpaid prosecutor.
Just push Rubenstein and McRae to "The Tipping Point" which is the title of a book by one of our better Canadian writers, although he played the race card in a relatively recent public debate and, correctly, "lost" that debate. I speak of Malcolm Gladwell, who is famous. It is up to people like us to make Hymie Rubenstein almost as famous. He's been at this for a very long time. His first pair of C2C articles convinced me of his goodness and honesty long ago.
Don't knock him. Encourage him to indict his "mortal" enemy, Murray [The pig at 3 troughs; Judiciary, Legislature/Senate and Commons] Sinclair. Go (to Court) Rubenstein. Go!!!
Only one Genocide has been documented in Canada. Prior to the 1600's the Six Nations tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy lived in the Finger Lakes Region SOUTH of Lake Ontario. For the next 2 centuries, armed with guns obtained from the Dutch And British in NY State, they pushed around both ends of Lake Ontario. They killed or took as slaves the HURONS who had been living there. By the early 1800's there were no more Hurons remaining ... NONE !!!
.
Small traces of Huron DNA can be found in Natives living in the region stretching from Montreal, along the St Lawrence River and North coast of Lake Ontario westward to Lake Huron. These are the descendants of Huron women and children take as Slaves.
The Senate is probably our only hope against laws suppressing truth. They will realize that truth suppression works both ways eventually and that such legislation puts all Canadians in danger.
Incidentally, I believe that the Senate was about to vote against Trudeau's Emergency Act which is why that legislation was withdrawn.
No Sir! Hymie is the great legal hope. He can't legally lose in a Court of Law, unless the Court Justice is either as equally corrupt or equally as stupid (or both) as Murray Sinclair's dumbest friends and conspirators. With McCrae as his counsel, that team cannot legally lose.
The Wetsuwetsen do not oppose the natural gas pipeline. The elected council voted for it, and many Wetsuwetsen work on the pipeline. A small group of hereditary chiefs and their environmental activist supporters have opposed and tried to block construction. The Great Bear Rainforest was created as part of a deal to build a 2.4 billon dollar natural gas facility on Haisla territory. It is not part of UNDRIP. There is not a black/white dichotomy on this issue, there are many shades of grey. Right now, the radicals are ascendant, and are asking for government assistance to criminalize dissent, even with supportive evidence. That, I would agree, is not good.
apparently they aren't even hereditary chiefs. they displaced women who were. BC is heading down the crapper with its support of UNDRIP. I work peripherally in the legal field and I listen to many Crown witnesses all mouthing the "reconciliation" platitudes. it's like their minds have all been taken over.
The opposing Wetsuwetsen have personal interests in protecting their own lucrative hunting / gathering areas which they control through some old clan claims. They have been jealously guarding these for decades and leasing traplines out, as well as hunting trips for wealthy tourists. This has been a significant source of tension in the area for a long time, and, as I learned a couple of years ago, well known and often argued in Huston. There may be environmental activists involved, but I suspect they don't know the back story and don't understand that this is about a few men trying to protect their personal wealth, and their dominance over various clans. There are better sources than the one I'm going to put here. Unfortunately, it's been so long since I looked at them, I can't find the one I thought was best. https://www.resourceworks.com/unperson-chiefs
Wow. This small article packs a punch, and should wake up a lot of Canadians to a govt. that is either geopolitically naive (if you want to be super- polite) or selling our nation's lands. I favour the latter explanation - it's Canadians that are geopoltically naive due to incompetent education institutions captured by the woke mob.
I am an enormous fan of the writing and research of Michelle Stirling. Canadians are being conned by their own governments on the issue of UNDRIP as well as that of endless historical deceit and native reparations. My favourite passage from the article: “Kimberly Murray is a lawyer. She should surely appreciate that murder…or on a grand scale…genocide, is a criminal offense. The first step in a criminal matter is to immediately secure the alleged crime scene, open a criminal investigation, question the witnesses, gather evidence and begin excavations to determine what is at these locations.” In Kamloops there has never been a police investigation. The genocide lie is to remain state mantra.
The cancellation of the RCMP investigation at Kamloops sticks in my craw like a persistent fishbone lodged in the throat. It is the ground zero of the entire fiasco.
what was the stated reason for the cancellation? was there a reason given? surely the police cancelling an investigation would have the opposite effect, one would think, indicating there was nothing to investigate. right?
Murray Sinclair intervened with Parliament saying the RCMP was being too overbearing or intimidating. Trudeau's self made policy of respecting the indigenous, compelled him to take the unprecedented action of giving the band the right to do their own investigation of a crime scene with over 200 alleged murdered children. By contrast, Robert Pickton's pig farm had a mere 33 victims and the investigation lasted two years. I am sure that the RCMP believed there was nothing to investigate and were relieved of that obligation but by ignoring legal protocol has been a costly SNAFU for Canada. This resonates well with Oliver Hardy's famous catch phrase, used in the Laurel and Hardy movies, when he says, "here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley".
McMurtry! You are so dumb. Somebody must have "educated" you as a school teacher. YOU, (stupid), are the government. What you call "governments" are your civil servants. When you can't distinguish your servants from your governors that means you are "dumb". And you still haven't showed up to Frances Widdowson's website where you gave that interview. I have some Socratic questions for you at that website.
Jim! Since you liked this stupidly-insulting-intentionally-provocative post, get over to Frances Widdowson's website. I want to speak logically, rather than rhetorically, with you.
Kevin
Note Murray's final report is September 2024.
Special Interlocutor’s mandate will be carried out from June 14, 2022 to June 13, 2024.
Well done! Thanks 😊
Thank you. I will ask to correct that.
Another quick correction: Frances Widdowson (not Francis). Also, while it's true that Sarah Beaulieu conducted the GPR work at Kamloops IRS between May 21 and May 24, 2021 (so May 22-23 in your article is partly correct), it wasn't until the band's announcement on May 27 that they made their claims about 215 graves. The reason I make this distinction is that the band did have several days between when the GPR was completed and when their press release was finalized (and, ostensibly, "leaked"). In her interim report, Kimberly Murray tries to give the impression that Kamloops had no time for thoughtful reflection before releasing the news.
Thank you. I'll have that noted/corrected.
Amazing how quickly they were able to analyze the data.
This is where the BS started. You gotta watch this. About Kevin Annett and Elders 2 days ago.
https://youtu.be/FN6F0ArPfoo
It occurred to me to go back and look at how many views that Annett YouTube video got: nearly 5,000 to date. Only 353 "likes"; no thumbs down (hmmm). 59 comments (to date), all apparently from supporters. Annett's channel has nearly 26,000 "subscribers" (which could be a very scary number, unless some of those followers are just "crazy-curious"). But out of nearly 5000 views, to get only 353 likes suggests a poor ratio, no?
I'm only starting to notice these kind of metrics, being something of a social media naif.
Thanks Joan. 😊
Um, thanks (I think), Eva : ) At least it was mercifully short. Did you see this one from Annett last December? http://murderbydecree.com/2022/12/08/the-recent-cree-massacre-in-saskatchewan-who-did-it-why-and-how-we-stop-them/#page-content
http://murderbydecree.com/2023/06/12/breaking-news-june-11-12-genocidal-churches-evicted-and-banished-from-vancouver-court-order-requires-city-to-cancel-church-licensing-and-empowers-people-to-seize-church-properties/.
As of today (Jul 7) 5,576 views with 379 "likes". What a ridiculous set of statements.
Well, if this doesn't make you depressed as a Canadian I don't know what will. jeebus. What can be done about it? No political party appears to want to touch anything indigenous related in any way.
Don't be depressed. Be exhilarated and encourage Hymie to do a serious argument/indictment (of Murray Sinclair) at Court with some lawyer's counsel. Would you believe a metaphorical Obi Wan Kinobe vs. Jaba The Hut (at the trough) go to a Canadian Court of Law with one Light Saber blazing (Kinobe/Rubenstein) and another "out brief candle" (Hut/Sinclair) blown out at Court. Hymie couldn't lose, unless some Court Justice publicly disobeyed a statute "on the record" of a legal proceeding. A guy like McCrae would see that de-facto disobedience to a Statute in a "twinkling" of his legal saber "eye".
Kevin
Some of us need to clean up their act or we will be destroyed by the forces of darkness.
I can't help but think that if there ever was a time for a plague of locusts to descend on parliament, now would be the perfect time. Just think of the message it would send.
what are we supposed to do?
Looks like I’m coming late to this party.
I don’t know anything about legal process, so I’m not going to try to argue with commenter Kevin Byrne, but it seems to me his exhortations here contain a lot of “famous-last-words” type stuff: “Hymie and McRae cannot rationally lose to Sinclair and friends in a law court.” “Hymie couldn't lose, unless some Court Justice publicly disobeyed a statute …” He can't legally lose in a Court of Law, unless the Court Justice is [corrupt] . . . With McCrae as his counsel, that team cannot legally lose.” Maybe Kevin hasn’t noticed that a lot of things are not playing out according to Hoyle in Canada these days.
In any case, I don’t know why he's so eager to put a target on Hymie’s back. “He can’t lose” – unless some crazed activist were to shoot him on his way in to the courthouse!
It isn’t Hymie’s responsibility to go to the guillotine. If there’s a legal case to be made, I suspect it will have to be made by the populace – by all of us. I don’t know what that means. A delegation? A petition? A class action?
OAN: I’m not going to try to argue with commenter Kevin Byrne
BYRNE:- Then you proceed to argue fairly well. But you really shouldn't say one thing and then contradict yourself in the same sentence. Guys like me love to look for such things. To your argument, quote
JOAN: it seems to me his exhortations here contain a lot of “famous-last-words” type stuff: “Hymie and McRae cannot rationally lose to Sinclair and friends in a law court.” “Hymie couldn't lose, unless some Court Justice publicly disobeyed a statute …” He can't legally lose in a Court of Law, unless the Court Justice is [corrupt] . . . With McCrae as his counsel, that team cannot legally lose.”
BYRNE: They look like accurate quotes to me. But you're not focusing closely enough on the word "rationally". Proceed to the conclusion of your argument.
JOAN: Maybe Kevin hasn’t noticed that a lot of things are not playing out according to Hoyle in Canada these days.
BYRNE: Hoyle is bridge rules, right? Don't you know that there are rules of Court and our Rule of Law, which also contains/IS rules. The first legal rule I ever learned was that in cases of alleged [Never proved! It can't be legally done!] collusion, the onus is entirely upon the impartial officers of the Court. Collusion essentially means "to deceive the court". So it is the DUTY of all impartial Officers of The Court to prevent the occurrence of collusive cases. There is no defense to such cases. That is why Socrates, Christ, Joan of Arc and many "lessers" have been rail-roaded at Court entirely contrary to "Hoyle" and the rule of law. It is also why most people eventually realize how egregiously unjust those cases were, after the collusive cases were decided. e.g. Joan's Court Record, before they burned her at the stake, was one of the major grounds for her canonization as a Saint. It was basically:- Only divine inspiration could have provided an illiterate with the answers and arguments by which she refuted everything thrown at her by crooked ecclesiastical lawyers and judges.
But you don't need to be Joan of Arc, Joan, in order to understand 2 simple legal rules from The Interpretation Act of Canada which read:
11. The expression "Shall" is to be construed as imperative and the expression "May" as permissive.
24. (5) Where a power is conferred or a DUTY imposed, on the holder of an office, the power may [permissive legal construction; power is permitted KB] be exercized and the DUTY SHALL [imperatively] BE PERFORMED by the person for the time being charged with the execution of the powers and DUTIES of the office.
Since Justices hold Judicial Office and lawyers are Court Officers, they are persons "for the time being charged with the execution of the powers and DUTIES of the office [Offices in the case more than one lawyer at Court.] So anyone who says COLLUSION to them, in open court, forces a DUTY upon them --- which SHALL be performed. Back to you Joan:
JOAN: In any case, I don’t know why he's so eager to put a target on Hymie’s back. “He can’t lose” – unless some crazed activist were to shoot him on his way in to the courthouse!
REFUTATION: When one lays an information before a Court Justice, that is the absolute beginning of a criminal action, unless one chooses to go the police route by writing a complaint to the police and attempting to get them to lay an information. But were one to go directly to Court, in accordance wth Section 504. C.C.C., no activist would even know Rubenstein or his Counsel was on his/their way to Court to lay it. After that, the Crown or any judge/justice to whom Hymie or his counsel speak has the DUTY upon him or her SELF to satisfy Hymie and his counsel that no one colluded at Kamloops. Thus all impartial Officers-Of-The-Court, including Court Clerks, become painted targets for Hymie and his counsel --- most of all the 3 LAWYERS of the TRC --- Sinclair, Littlechild and Murray. They are the targets which Rubenstein and his lawyer would "paint". Not him. I'm trying to do the same thing with both Widdowson and McMurtry.
But I think they are a lot "slower" than Dr. Rubenstein. I'm not all that "eager". I painted Sinclair at 2 Canon Law Tribunals because we are both baptized Catholics --- over a year ago. But the clerical judges have been "dodging", unsuccessfully, since then.
I say, unsuccessfully, because we have a "thing" in the Roman Catholic Church called the "Pauline Privilege", which means one may (permissively) appeal to Caezar at the outset of any Canon Law case. Our version of "Caezar" is Pope Francis and he's more WOKE than any "woke" thing in North America. "Woke" for Jesuit Clerics is called "Liberation Theology" which is, essentially "Marxism for Clerics". So, I'm in no "rush" to get anywhere near a Liberation Theologian --- even if he wears a white cassock and has "red socks" --- which a Jewish colleague of mine once called the, then, Pope, "Old Red Socks".
This Hungarian Jewish colleague [He a pathologist. Me a technologist.] knew I was a Catholic, so he said: "Fff The Pope.", with a provocative gleam in his eye and a truculently curled lip. But he didn't know that I was Irish Catholic until I burst out laughing. We got to be friendly acquaintances thereafter --- knowing that technologists must defer to pathologists even when they "harass" our religious betters. The old "Red Socks" to whom he referred never said "genocide" when he visited the First Nations Folks during his papal tour --- sometime in the 1980's.
In conclusion, Joan. You are just as competent as Hymie to do the collusion thing before any "Court" which has jurisdiction with respect to all 4 TRC colluders. Hymie lives in Manitoba, which is the primary reason for "targeting" him to go after Sinclair in a secular tribunal as distinct from a Canon Law Tribunal --- where the worst they can do to you is to excommunicate you. Sinclair has already done that to himself. I digress too much. Back to you for your last words:-
JOAN: It isn’t Hymie’s responsibility to go to the guillotine. If there’s a legal case to be made, I suspect it will have to be made by the populace – by all of us. I don’t know what that means. A delegation? A petition? A class action?
BYRNE: You are almost absolutely correct Joan. It means an information. A petition is an application where no relief is applied for against another person. That wouldn't work. Murray Sinclair is not a "class". That wouldn't work. But you could get a delegation together and lay an information. Anyone may (permissive construction) do that. That's what being equal before and equal under the law means. Should I start "gad-flying" you as well as Hymie, McMurtry and Widdowson?
Kevin
Okay then, Kevin – an “information,” if that’s the best approach. But you know, I have a feeling that any kind of action against specific people (such as the TRC commissioners, as you urge) would be met with knee-jerk accusations of racism and a lot of Canadians would therefore not get behind it (i.e. even if the action succeeded and the outcome became public). On the other hand, we probably COULD muster broad support for an action that didn’t accuse any individual people, but instead demanded, say, a criminal investigation of the Kamloops putative burials to confirm or refute claims of murders. Even some Indigenous folks and their staunchest allies are wanting to see this resolved through excavation of some of those GPR hits. I presume the challenge in that case would be to the Kamloops band, or maybe the RCMP (for backing off when they should have persevered).
BTW, I didn’t really follow your lesson on collusion, but there’s no point trying to school me on the law; I’ve got too much else on my plate, and too little intellectual interest.
Yes, you do digress too much. And no, I don’t want you to start gadflying me. If the people you are currently pestering aren’t responding to your urgings, then perhaps you should take that as their answer.
You don't lay an information before "a lot of Canadians" --- just before 1 Justice. Of course you, quote "didn't really follow your/my lesson on collusion" because collusion means "to deceive (legally experienced) Courts" and you have "too much on your plate" and "too little intellectual interest" to be schooled "on the law". Since you admit to being an intentional legal ignoramous, then what is your legal or "intellectual" ground for being annoyed with people like Murray Sinclair or other indigenous activists? Maybe they are perfectly in "the right", both legally and morally. Then your only legal or moral ground for opposing them would be the "racism" criticism which you seem to be afraid of. Don't worry that I might "gadfly" you further. One can neither beat nor bite an intellectually dead horse.
Kevin
Urrrh ... I suppose you might beat or bite a dead horse. But it wouldn't do Hymie or anyone else --- including the horse --- any good.
KB
What are we to do? Encourage Hymie to indict Murray Sinclair. Hymie knows Aristotelian Syllogisms. The major premises of legal arguments are statutes. There is no such thing as a "false" statute. The minor premises are the TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but THE TRUTH. When your major and minor premises are both true, then your conclusion [called a judgment or verdict at Court] is both true and sound.
Hymie and McRae cannot rationally lose to Sinclair and friends in a law court. That is why Sinclair will not respond to McRae's challenge and why Murray wants it made illegal to challenge the "genocide" thesis. Sinclair is not a stupid lawyer. He's just an obviously incompetent evidence fabricator and he has to rely upon "dopes" like Sarah Boileau, Kimberly Murray and Roseanne Casimir to "carry" the truth function for him in public arguments. Anyone or all 3 of those "girls" will fold like an accordion with any competent lawyer crossing them in open Court --- given all the dumb things they've said.
Keep encouraging Hymie --- even when you want to criticize him. He deserves to be a "star" in open Court along with his legal friend McRae.
One of us, who is you, ought to indict Murray Sinclair before a Manitoba Court Justice with that McRae fellow as his counsel.
Kevin
You are doing important work, keep it up. You have made a strong case that conflict lies before us. I totally agree that the radicals are on the march, and the normies are asleep.
A very powerful article that reads like a "whodunit" detective novel. Michelle's article contains elements that I have never read before and suggests conspiratorial underpinnings that are hard to ignore. We are all well aware of the obvious "Fifth Columnists" in our ranks. In our blind indifference to our own national welfare, we elected them to Parliament and they showed their fealty by accusing their country of the most heinous crime in the civilized world, genocide. As the guttural idiom says, "you can't make this shit up," but in Canada, you don't have to. It's a daily reality. Michelle is absolutely right when she says, "one side is determined not to give up, the other asleep". We have definetly become somnambulant to the dangers that confront us, a threat, that in no small part, is related to a comatose P.M. and sycophantic parliament. Just remember as the title of Juliette Kayyem's book suggests, "the devil never sleeps".
And now you are "woke/awake" too, Kemosabe --- a different sort of woke. Hi, Oh SILVER haired Rubenstein. May he be your true LONE RANGER when/if he wakes from his Aristotelian slumber. By the bye, Nice Post above.
Kevin
Finally, a Stirling (forgive the pun) article. Her other articles had major and minor defects reflected in the titles of her articles. But this third article is perfect.
Fabricating bogus "evidence" of a genocide is a Section 137. Criminal Code offence. When it is done in "order" to defraud the public, that is a Section 380. (fraud) criminal code offence. Accusing others of crimes, in "order" to cover-up one's own crime, is called public mischief, contrary to Sect. 140. of the Criminal Code, when the complaint is made to a peace officer or "The Crown". If such behavior occurs in concert with an Attorney General, the offence is called "concealing and compounding" an indictable offence, contrary to Section 141. of Canada's criminal code.
As Michelle noted, Kimberly Murray is a lawyer. She was the executive director of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from 2010 - 2015. Murray is as guilty of fabricating evidence of a genocide in order to suppress evidence of simply (but egregiously) neglected graveyards and cemeteries (in order to defraud the public) as are Wilton Littlechild, Murray Sinclair and Marie Wilson --- the 3 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners who received perfect evidence of neglected graveyards and cemeteries in 2015, courtesy of Dr. Scott Hamilton of Lakehead University in his report entitled "Where are the Children Buried?". [https://nctr.ca/records/reports/#highlighted-reports]
The report is still up at the National Centre For Truth and Reconciliation with all 3 of the first so-called "discoveries" on page 15 of The Report. The missing (due to neglect) grave markers were known before 2015 but documented for the TRC with Hamilton's Report. That the markers were missing because of decay and neglect is the evidence which has been suppressed in order to defraud the public, who never heard or read Dr. Scott Hamilton's mention of cemeteries for all of Kamloops ("discovery" #1), Cowessess ("discovery" #2) and St. Eugene's at Cranbrook ("discovery" #3) --- all made on page 15 of Hamilton's Report --- 6 years before the so-called "discoveries".
Since Hymie Rubenstein and Michelle Stirling seem to have "kissed and made up"; given he is now publishing her 2nd article (after "dissing" her first article) about T.B. as a "forgotten plague" [certainly a well known and not forgotten "plague" to the 3 TRC Commissioners and their Executive Director, Kimberly Murray]; and they also have several lawyers "on board" [Brian Giesbrecht, Peter Best, D. Barry Kirkham Q.C. and Former Manitoba attorney general Jim McCrae ], they are approaching the "critical mass" of The Supreme Court of Canada. With the 4 lawyers, and 2 historians [Rubenstein and Stirling] you have 6 individuals who are equal before and under the law with the 9 Supreme Court Justices.
The question is "equally what"? They are all equally different because they have different functions in a Court of Law. Rubenstein and Stirling are the sorts of individuals, usually called "expert witnesses", who have the TRUTH function in a Court of Law. Neither judges nor lawyers have that function. Judges and lawyers are actual "inferiors" in the truth function --- called matters or questions of fact at Court, with Rubenstein and Stirling "superiors" in truth. However the lawyers, though "inferior" in the truth function, are the "superiors" of Rubenstein and Stirling in the ARGUMENT function of a Court, which is called the question of law, at Court. Anyone may have heard either a real or fictional lawyer say "Objection, (the answer is) argumentative, M'Lord or Your Honour." In short, "truth" people can't argue at Court. The lawyers have that function.
When one integrates an ARGUMENT (the lawyer function) with TRUTH (the witness function), the result is a JUDGMENT, which is the Judicial Function in a Court of Law. Judges/Justices are "inferiors" in the truth and the argument functions of a Court of Law, but "superiors" in judgment.
Of course, everyone is required to use their own judgment [but much better the "Law's" judgments] as to whether or not they are going to lie or tell the truth at Court (as witnesses). Again, lawyers have to use their own judgments as to what ARGUMENT/s they'll make at Court and what questions to ask witnesses in order to either "elucidate the truth" [prosecutors] or to cast "reasonable doubts" [defense counsel] on the alleged truth of witnesses at Court.
But IN SUM, the respective "superiority" and "inferiority" of all parties [direct party "eye witnesses" or corroborating/refuting 3rd party witnesses; and indirect party lawyers and judges] to a legal proceeding makes ALL PARTIES "equal" in the ultimate Court Judgment --- equally necessary to form a rational legal judgment by 3 types of necessarily independent parties [1. Truth, 2. Argument and 3. Judgment parties] in a legal TRIBUNAL [ a 3-in-one sort of "unity"].
I say that the 6 people [4 lawyers and 2 historians] are "APPROACHING the critical mass" of a Supreme Court of Canada because 5 Court Justices are a Supreme Court Quorum for a formal legal judgment. Six individuals are "superior" to that 5 Court quorum of Canada's Supreme Court. However the 6 are vastly "inferior" in the number (at least 2) of lower Court Judgments, required to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which, of course, controls its own docket. But Sinclair, Littlechild, Wilson and Kimberly Murray would not survive an indictment by the worst Crown Prosecutor imaginable with the 6 people I have mentioned above as witnesses for the prosecution.
It is said that the only thing required for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. They don't even have to be "good". Average historians, average lawyers and average citizens are more than enough to convict sleaze-balls, like Murray, Sinclair, Littlechild and Wilson of fraud and evidence fabricating ACTS which are CONTRARY to the Rule of Law --- not the rulings of lawyers or judges --- the RULE OF LAW, to which all equal citizens are SUBJECT.
Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne
Very well said, Kevin !!!
Thanks Kemosabe. Does this make me the Lone Ranger?
Actually, if Rubenstein convinces McRae to indict Murray Sinclair in a Manitoba Court, or McRae convinces Rubenstein to indict Sinclair, then those 2 guys will be Canada's almost "alone" Rangers. They can easily do it. My wife's lawyer didn't last one question in my first Court case --- which was over 30 years ago.
But philosophers can't "morally" do adversarial debate. We get to do the truth function on Affidavit and the argument function on documents called pleadings. So "we" have the correct judgment from the "get go" of any Court proceeding. Justices are extraordinarily "slow" at catching up, after being deceived (by lawyers). They don't listen to most litigants --- frankly because most litigants are liars, ignorant of the law, or both.
I filed my Canon Law Case against those clowns last year because both Sinclair and myself are baptized Catholics. But my Church is "slow". John Paul II "apologized" to Galileo during his pontificate, and Galileo was as guilty as hell of disobeying a Papal Order. He wasn't guilty of being wrong about Heliocentrism --- just guilty of disobeying a papal order during the so-called Reformation. One must be extraordinarily persistent to win any kind of argument in my Church --- usually it is one's 5th generation "descendant" or "advocate" that actually settles a Canon Law argument after generations of liars have finally given up the argument.
Hi-Oh SILVER haired Rubenstein (or McRae) developing some testicles in their old ages, Kemosabe. And I'm still waiting to read your complaint to the cops. But you may be as "shy" as Canadian Bishops!!! FAUGH!
Insist on high writing standards to make our arguments convincing even to fence sitters.
Not to fence sitters, Hymie. Make your indictment convincing to a Manitoba Court Justice. You can do that with McRae's counsel.
Kevin
I mean McCrae's counsel, as corrected by Michael Melanson of Pax Humanitas.
Dangerous and scary. Trudeau is tearing Canada apart, and the fn industry is happy to help.
Trudeau can't tear this country apart. He is one politician who wears blackface and who is entirely ignorant of the law. I'll give him nice hair, nice socks and a nice-looking family. Those things don't count at Court.
Staggering reality in a sea of red and crimson disinformation, "a passion play" for our sovereignty to be certain.
All you have to do is convince Hymie to make a "legal play" in concert with his legal friends. He and Sinclair both live in Manitoba and a former Attorney General and lawyer named McRae (former Attorney General of Manitoba) has already publicly challenged Sinclair. Now all they have to do is indict Sinclair in a Manitoba Court. Alternatively they might try to convince a policeman or Crown prosecutor to do the indictment. But both Rubenstein and McRae are vastly better arguers than any policemen or overworked/underpaid prosecutor.
Just push Rubenstein and McRae to "The Tipping Point" which is the title of a book by one of our better Canadian writers, although he played the race card in a relatively recent public debate and, correctly, "lost" that debate. I speak of Malcolm Gladwell, who is famous. It is up to people like us to make Hymie Rubenstein almost as famous. He's been at this for a very long time. His first pair of C2C articles convinced me of his goodness and honesty long ago.
Don't knock him. Encourage him to indict his "mortal" enemy, Murray [The pig at 3 troughs; Judiciary, Legislature/Senate and Commons] Sinclair. Go (to Court) Rubenstein. Go!!!
Kevin
Only one Genocide has been documented in Canada. Prior to the 1600's the Six Nations tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy lived in the Finger Lakes Region SOUTH of Lake Ontario. For the next 2 centuries, armed with guns obtained from the Dutch And British in NY State, they pushed around both ends of Lake Ontario. They killed or took as slaves the HURONS who had been living there. By the early 1800's there were no more Hurons remaining ... NONE !!!
.
Small traces of Huron DNA can be found in Natives living in the region stretching from Montreal, along the St Lawrence River and North coast of Lake Ontario westward to Lake Huron. These are the descendants of Huron women and children take as Slaves.
.
Someone named Melanson who writes PAX HUMANITAS has told me that I am misspelling McCrae as McRae. Oh Dopey Me.
The Senate is probably our only hope against laws suppressing truth. They will realize that truth suppression works both ways eventually and that such legislation puts all Canadians in danger.
Incidentally, I believe that the Senate was about to vote against Trudeau's Emergency Act which is why that legislation was withdrawn.
what? the same senate that flounced Beyak out for being truthful? Pfft.
No Sir! Hymie is the great legal hope. He can't legally lose in a Court of Law, unless the Court Justice is either as equally corrupt or equally as stupid (or both) as Murray Sinclair's dumbest friends and conspirators. With McCrae as his counsel, that team cannot legally lose.
The Wetsuwetsen do not oppose the natural gas pipeline. The elected council voted for it, and many Wetsuwetsen work on the pipeline. A small group of hereditary chiefs and their environmental activist supporters have opposed and tried to block construction. The Great Bear Rainforest was created as part of a deal to build a 2.4 billon dollar natural gas facility on Haisla territory. It is not part of UNDRIP. There is not a black/white dichotomy on this issue, there are many shades of grey. Right now, the radicals are ascendant, and are asking for government assistance to criminalize dissent, even with supportive evidence. That, I would agree, is not good.
apparently they aren't even hereditary chiefs. they displaced women who were. BC is heading down the crapper with its support of UNDRIP. I work peripherally in the legal field and I listen to many Crown witnesses all mouthing the "reconciliation" platitudes. it's like their minds have all been taken over.
The opposing Wetsuwetsen have personal interests in protecting their own lucrative hunting / gathering areas which they control through some old clan claims. They have been jealously guarding these for decades and leasing traplines out, as well as hunting trips for wealthy tourists. This has been a significant source of tension in the area for a long time, and, as I learned a couple of years ago, well known and often argued in Huston. There may be environmental activists involved, but I suspect they don't know the back story and don't understand that this is about a few men trying to protect their personal wealth, and their dominance over various clans. There are better sources than the one I'm going to put here. Unfortunately, it's been so long since I looked at them, I can't find the one I thought was best. https://www.resourceworks.com/unperson-chiefs