Canada is an easy target for self marginalized people anxious to scapegoat others for their own misfortune. Our overly polite and generous accommodating culture has become victimized by a bullying and vitriolic movement intent on not only biting the hand that feeds it but also consuming it. Complicit in this carnage is a cabal of intellectually moribund, sycophantic politicians led by an immature, day dream believer, P.M. whose interpretation of genocide is situational and depends on who is asking. With guarded optimism, lets hope things get better before getting worse.
Thank you Michelle for another enlightening and articulate article.
Its such an outrage that the bien-pensants of this country have created and/or swallowed this insane and unjust 'genocide' narrative. I seriously question the general competence, honesty and integrity of this country's Establishment in the 2000s. Keep up the fight for truth and reality.
But if you express an opinion such as you just did, you are immediately labelled racist, white supremacist, and entitled white man! Sad. People of extreme left (and extreme right) are NOT interested in dialogue, and the proof is in the evidence of them insulting the person rather than discussing the argument.
I encourage everyone I meet to stand up and speak the truth (not 'their' truth, but objective truth backed up facts and data). Also, it is important to not give a fuck about what people say about you. The ability to do that I admit comes with age, but it is an important skill to master.
Yes, that is true. Which prove they are authoritarians. They are not interested in dialog, they are trying to impose their opinions on everyone else. Which is why its extra important to STAND UP, push back and be counted.
Breathtakingly lucid. Well done! I have lived in this shadow for many years but finally reason seems to be appearing. I taught at Grouard mission for a year and had an excellent rapport with students and community both Indigenous and Western European. We had no heat in our teacherage till November 10th. My son was born on Nov.16. Our water came from a slough dugout where the indigenous students swam. We laughed this off and found ways around the difficulty, we are Brits. there are no problems just answers! When we left Grouard the Indigenous trustee, Leona Willier and her husband John asked us to board their daughter while she attended U of Albert in a nursing program. Later with my X country skiing connections I assisted by transporting and boarding members of the TEST, Territorial ski training program as they made their way from Inuvik through Edmonton and on to Toronto. I met the Bullocks and Cockneys of the world , fine young men. I regret nothing.
IMO Marxists needed this genocide a narrative to get people to not pay attention to their unbelievable freaking violence. Popular academics like Noam Chomsky deny many actual genocides by socialists. Many of them read Howard Zinn's a people's history get there false communist ahistorical narrative.
Michelle Stirling writes that “to date, we have no archival records of children being reported missing by Indigenous parents in those years.” Our country has gone nuts about missing and murdered children at residential schools but there are none. If a child had gone missing or was murdered at school, someone would have noticed or said something. Stirling’s article is sterling.
Good. Now prove the above in your Arbitration in front of as many lawyers as you can obtain for that arbitration. None of them will be able to refute you. As to "nuts", speak for yourself. I'm still waiting for you at Widdowson's web site.
Once again, a very good article. But you're still "playing defence", Michelle. That is not the way to do anything "legal", given that THE LAW (not people) presumes that you and CANADA are entirely innocent. So you are never required to "play defence" in legal matters. Always move to offence or counter-offence ASAP, or as soon as you see any weakness in the adversary's case. As to your cases:-
You went from 2 badly defensive articles to a 3rd entirely PERFECT article (both legal offence and legal defence well demonstrated) when you wrote MANUFACTURING A GENOCIDE; The BALKANIZATION of CANADA. You got about 65 replies to that article --- admittedly I wrote quite a few of them --- which is large for a substack article. You amplify the further, but entirely unnecessary, defence in this article [No Pride in Genocide]. Let's see if I can get you to understand something of offence --- having failed, so far, with Frances Widdowson, James McMurtry and Hymie Rubenstein. Just look at the title of your previous article ----> "manufacturing a genocide".
In legalese your title could be called FABRICATING EVIDENCE OF A GENOCIDE, which is a "Type E" criminal code offence --- a 14 year maximum sentence. Most legally untrained people think of "evidence" as DNA, or blood spatters, or fingerprints, or bodies in graves, which is called MATERIAL EVIDENCE. But every bit of that sort of material evidence requires the expert testimony of an expert witness who gives explanatory testimony; a.k.a. evidence; to enable inexpert lawyers and judges of The Court to interpret/understand physical or material evidence. So the legal definition of EVIDENCE is:- "'Evidence' or 'Statement' means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not; [Definitions; 'evidence'; Sect. 118. Criminal Code of Canada]
HENCE what Murray Sinclair said at/to the CBC, and to the entire country, on June 1st, 2021 and what he said to the Indian and Northern Affairs "emergency" Committee, of Canada's Commons, on June 3rd 2021, is what the Law calls both 'evidence' [Sect. 118. CCC] and what the LAW also describes as PERJURY in Sections 131.(1) and 131.(2) of Canada's Criminal Code. Yes, Michelle. One may commit perjury outside a "judicial proceeding".
The key to understanding Sinclair's offences, and those of his colluding friends, is the Highlighted Report, entitled "Where are the Children Buried?", sent to the 3 TRC Commissioners and their Executive Director, Kimberly Murray, in 2015, by Dr. Scott Hamilton of Lakehead University --- a full 6 years before the alleged "discoveries" of unmarked graves in 2021. I gave you the link to that Highlighted Report previously. Once again:
Since you are a good researcher and journalist, go to page 15 of Hamilton's Report and note that the first 3 so-called "discoveries" [Kamloops, Cowessess and St. Eugene's at Cranbrook] are all named on the first paragraph of Hamilton's page 15 --- 6 years before their so-called "discoveries". Note also that all 3 "discoveries" are described as CEMETERIES by Dr. Hamilton. I can't remember how many times I have boringly told people like Widdowson, Rubenstein, McMurtry, James Pew, etc. etc. to look at that page 15 of Dr. Hamilton's Report. It literally proves that the TRC commissioners and their colluding AFN "buddies" fabricated arguable evidence of killings and suppressed evidence of neglected graveyards and/or cemeteries in order to DEFRAUD the Canadian public. None of the announcements said "unmarked graves in KNOWN CEMETERIES."
Lawyers, like Sinclair, always let legally ignorant citizens --- usually members of juries --- fill in the truth or falsehood "blanks" for themselves, when they go about legally/argumentatively fabricating evidence to support their client's cases and legally/argumentatively "casting doubts" about the truth from the other side of the case/s against their clients. Only, this time, Sinclair stepped over the line, by slipping from "argument mode" into truth mode by saying in public and on television that they had "discovered bodies" at Kamloops. He knew that was a FALSE statement, at the same time he followed up with inadmissible "hear-say" from the Truth and Reconciliation commission.
Sinclair is a crook and so are his friends, Littlechild, Wilson and Kimberly Murray of the TRC. So, too, very arguably, is Roseanne Casimir of the Secwepemc and all her friends of the Day School Survivors suit filed in Vancouver in 2012, certified as a Class Action in 2015 and settled out of Court about 13 days after the bogus "discovery" of umarked graves at Kamloops in 2021. When you, Michelle, Hymie, Frances Widdowson and James McMurtry, along with the 4 lawyers Rubenstein often quotes [Peter Best, Brian Giesbrecht, James McCrae and somebody else] put your heads together, using THE LAW as your interpreter of evidence, then you will successfully have Sinclair jailed along with his colluding scoundrel friends in the aboriginal bogus industry. Until then, you are a collection of BALKANIZED Canadian THINKERS and dull-witted "accessories after" to the crimes of Sinclair and friends.
Kevin; You make some excellent points. I am no lawyer but we do have Justice Ministries both federally and provincially. What is stopping them from filing charges?
It is good that you are "no lawyer". That makes you a truth person, rather than a "caster of doubts upon the truth" lawyer-person. And there is not one lawyer in the world whom you cannot easily contradict by hiring another opposed lawyer to argue that contradiction or contrary for you.
As to people in Justice Ministries: Nothing is stopping them. But filing charges is not their job. It is actually your job, Robert, and mine as well. Police and prosecutors may also do it, provided that people like us [truth people; not argument people, such as lawyers] convince prosecutors or policemen to do it for us. I'll explain:-
Justice ministries deal with the administration of Justice, which Aristotle tells us is, quote, "the determination of what is just". In full, ARISTOTLE: " But JUSTICE is the BOND OF MEN IN STATES, for the administration of JUSTICE, which IS THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS JUST, is the PRINCIPLE of ORDER in political society." [Politics; Book I, Ch. 2., 1253a lines 37 - 39 approximately]
The Courts, by sharp contrast, deal with injustice. Persons in JUSTICE ministries, in recontrast to Courts, don't file charges, since they only deal with justice. They leave the filing of charges --- which is all about injustice (not justice) --- to the police, crown prosecutors or private citizens, such as Hymie, Frances Widdowson, James McMurtry, James Pew (and you or me), who I, so far, have not been able to convince --- even though both Widdowson and McMurtry have been unjustly fired by Canadian citizens who are "accessories after" to the criminal code offences of Sinclair et alia.
So far, I have not been able to forge A BOND among them. It may be that they are unjust or merely confused. Who knows?
Justice Ministries, both Federal and Provincial, as you mention, only deal with Justice. The Courts, in sharp contrast, deal with psychos of both violent and non-violent varieties. Such psychopaths are "everywhere" --- Widdowson, McMurtry, Pew, etc. etc. have been interacting with such psychos for years at present. These sorts of "psychos" always gravitate towards power/control positions in hierarchies, where they may "pull strings" from behind the backs of duller, more directly-acting people, who may or may not be psychopaths themselves. Sometimes the direct actors are simply gullible easily-deceived individuals, who think they are doing right in "cancelling" people like Frances Widdowson or James McMurtry. In those cases you may always back track to the psycho, whose "orders" they are taking, by pressuring the "flunky" direct actor.
The "psycho" will protect the "flunky", which Frances Widdowson's researcher documented, when Murray Sinclair told members of the House of Commons that the RCMP were "intimidating" the ground penetrating radar specialist at Kamloops. Typical "non-violent-psycho" maneuver on the part of Sinclair.
So for JUSTICE to be DONE, as well as to be seen, in order to be DONE, a bond among free, honest and relatively courageous individuals must be formed. If that bond does not form, they are no more or less "just" than Sinclair, Littlechild, Wilson, Murray and AFN friends. When that bond fails to form, LADY JUSTICE moves from the Courts of a Country into the streets and then you get FRANCE in the last couple of weeks. Lady JUSTICE is scary-strange. I prefer Lady WISDOM, who was the muse of Socrates --- the lady in white who told Socrates, in a dream, that he would return to fertile Phthia (the home of Achilles) on the 3rd day. [Plato; Crito, 44b]
So if you want justice to be done, and seen to be done, you have to pack the Courts with truth people, rather than the dismal liars who trudge in and out of Courtrooms and into and out of jails every day and all the time at "Courts". If you won't do that, then the liars will always win at Court --- which is "just" for a society filled with liars and/or cowards.
Kevin; I think you understand the 'mechanics' of the court system better than I. I did,however, talk to a crown prosecutor and an MPP who is a lawyer, about the possibility of filing charges. I think most informed folks are aware, as soon as the word 'Indian' is spoken people run for the exits. Where I live there is an unused MNR facility on the lake bordering the city. This facility is being offered to the Algonquins as part of the land claim. I asked the city to speak up and keep this great lakeside facility for city use. Not one word has been spoken by the mayor or any councillor in support of keeping this building which we paid for and can surely be put to good use. I am afraid we are a spineless bunch.
Filing charges against whom? For what offence? Does MNR mean Ministry of Natural Resources? I presume so, As to Court 'mechanics' they are dead easy.
They are adversarial legal syllogisms invented; more correctly applied; by medieval students of Aristotle in Canon Law Tribunals. The major premises of such legal syllogisms are Statutes. The minor premises are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The conclusions of such legal syllogisms are called Verdicts or Judgments --- sometimes even precedents.
There are 2 simple factors [1. Question of Law and 2. Matter/s of Fact] with, at minimum, 2 opposed alternatives in an adversarial system.
Follow the math --- 2 factors X 2 (adversarial) alternatives = 4 possible judgment types/kinds. Same kind of thing as Gregor Mendel's pea garden:-
2 traits in peas: 1, Shape and 2. Color with 2 alternatives for each factor/trait. Smooth or Wrinkled for shaped. Yellow or Green for color. Ergo 4 possible kinds of peas 1. Smooth and Green; 2. Smooth and yellow; 3. Wrinkled and Green and 4. Wrinkled and Yellow. 4 kinds of peas.
Similarly with Court Judgements. 2 Factors (question of law; matter of fact) with 2 alternatives (given adversarial arguments) THUS: 1. Rational Argument backed up by a Statute + True statement = just judgment. 2. Irrational Argument without Statute back-up + False Statement = doubly false or absurd judgment. 3. Rational Argument backed up by Statute + False statement = false judgment; and 4. Irrational Argument without statute back up + true, but irrelevant, statement = irrational judgment.
3 of the 4 kinds of Court judgments are errors. Lawyer seldom pick or argue for the absurd judgment. But, often the false judgment vs. the irrational judgment comes to court, or the false vs. the absurd judgment or the irrational vs the absurd. Thus, you can get a lot of bad court judgments which is why nobody, in the old days, ever let lawyers anywhere near law making.
I'm not so sure the courts in Canada are the arbiters of truth as you appear to state. Is that what you state? We are in the legal mess, particularly in largely untreatied BC, we are in today (and for the foreseeable future) precisely because of court decisions that upheld aboriginal right and/or title.
See my long comment above, Alison. I don't know about those Court decisions of which you speak. They may be fine for all I know. But I do know that Murray Sinclair is a crook because of his CBC commentary of June 1st 2021 and his receipt of Scott Hamilton's Report to his Commission of 2015.
I guess we Canadians will not annex San Francisco. We can just go to the local library and watch "Drag Queen Story Time" along with "brilliant" Canadian parents who bring their children to such culturally uplifting events. Just imagine a truly Monarchist Canada. Fire all the useless politicians and directly petition his Majesty to hire only intelligent bureaucrats. Way better than any dull-witted Republic. Way more cost efficient as well.
ALISON MALIS WROTE: I'm not so sure the courts in Canada are the arbiters of truth as you appear to state. Is that what you state?
Kevin's REPLY: No! I do not state that Courts are truth arbiters. Far from it. Truth people seldom attend "Courts". Truth people can tell the truth and determine legal judgments from the law if they know the relevant law. The law will give them the correct common law morality judgment as long as both potential parties both admit the truth and acknowledge the law.
Thus they do not require any recourse to a minimum of 3 low I.Q.'d lawyers --- 2 arguing lawyers and 1 judge-lawyer at minimum --- of which NONE know the truth and 2 of the 3 lawyers will argue against the truth from opposites sides of each case. How could those 3 low I.Q..'d clowns know anything about the truth, let alone be arbiters of it?
I'll grant you that many of them know the law --- at least much of the law. But they know nothing of the truth. Both lawyers on both sides of any case of law spend all their time attempting to cast so-called reasonable doubts about the truth on the other side of the case. They also inevitably counsel their clients to stay off of the witness stand --- where one is legally required to tell the truth.
Does any of the above "sound" like such clowns are remotely interested in the truth or being arbiters of the truth? They love the legal presumption of innocence, which is why they tell their clients --- don't tell the truth on the witness stand. You don't have to. Stay safely "presumed innocent".
Lawyers also love to trip up honest but easily confused witnesses who are against their clients, when those honest (easily confused ) witnesses try to tell the truth. Again, there is no truth in lawyers. That is not their job at Court. They want to catch you in a falsehood or, at least, the appearance of a falsehood. So, no Virginia, lawyers are not truth arbiters.
Why do I call them "low I.Q.'d Clowns"??? It is an occupational hazard. Geniuses do not go to Court to settle their arguments. Simple honest people do not go to Court to settle their arguments. So who goes to Court, or is taken to Court by cops or prosecuting lawyers? Would you believe mental and/or moral degenerates --- which is the truth for/in the majority of cases of law?
How, in God's Holy Name, can lawyers "improve their I.Q.s" by either prosecuting the cases of mental and/or moral degenerates or defending the cases of mental and/or moral degenerates??? Lawyers start out "smart enough". But after 10 years of prosecuting or defending the law cases of IDIOTS and another, say 10 years, of judging the cases of idiots, most of them have the I.Q.s of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Does that sound like I think that such scoundrels are truth arbiters?
I'll admit one thing though. They are much easier to "wake up", at Court, than any of Hymie Rubenstein, Frances Widdowson or James McMurtry. But, by the time they "awaken", they awaken to the fact that they've broken their own precious laws, because they do not listen to lying litigants --- only to lawyers who neither know, nor tell the truth. So the strangest "things", that they never see in their Courts, are "guys" like Widdowson, Rubenstein and McMurtry. And the presumed lying litigant who knows the truth and is completely and utterly disgusted by them and their dullness knocks the poor prima donnas for a loop.
They wanna see more of that kind of "philosophy stuff", because it reawakens some of the reasons why they gravitated to "the law" in the first place. But philosophy is non-adversarial debate. It is, by law, illegal at Court. They are required, by law, to throw the cases of philosophers out of Court. But they don't want to do it. So they break their own laws and still don't know the truth. Of course it is the collusion law, about which I talk so much, that they breach.
There are thousands of young Canadians from rural Canada who lived in bording houses while attending high school and only got home at Christmas and summer. I know some of them. I knew many of the Indian kids who attended Shingwauk Residential School. One boy who attended some classes at my old high school said Shingwauk was the best place he ever lived. People who have nothing good to say about the Residential schools never tell us what the living conditions were like for the kids who stayed home on the Reserves. Even today look at the number of kids who have to be taken into foster care custody.
The biggest insult (and there are many) was the vote taken on October 22,2022 in Federal Parliament declaring Canada a 'genocidal country' . We are far from it. We have created a modern ,industrial nation that provides opportunities and care for everybody who is lucky enough to live here. How many Canadian Indians are packing up and moving to Reserves in the U.S.?
... which is why Sitting Bull described the Canadian American border as the "medicine line". Bad medicine, south of the line. Good medicine, north of the line. But that guy was an actual Indian --- not an "apple", like Murray Sinclair. [ You call me a "settler" and I'll call you an "apple" and we can "ad hominem" each other all day long. KB]
Canada is an easy target for self marginalized people anxious to scapegoat others for their own misfortune. Our overly polite and generous accommodating culture has become victimized by a bullying and vitriolic movement intent on not only biting the hand that feeds it but also consuming it. Complicit in this carnage is a cabal of intellectually moribund, sycophantic politicians led by an immature, day dream believer, P.M. whose interpretation of genocide is situational and depends on who is asking. With guarded optimism, lets hope things get better before getting worse.
Thank you Michelle for another enlightening and articulate article.
Oh for heaven's sake, Kemosabe! Quit whining and hoping. Go Report Sinclair to the police.
Kevin
Its such an outrage that the bien-pensants of this country have created and/or swallowed this insane and unjust 'genocide' narrative. I seriously question the general competence, honesty and integrity of this country's Establishment in the 2000s. Keep up the fight for truth and reality.
But if you express an opinion such as you just did, you are immediately labelled racist, white supremacist, and entitled white man! Sad. People of extreme left (and extreme right) are NOT interested in dialogue, and the proof is in the evidence of them insulting the person rather than discussing the argument.
I encourage everyone I meet to stand up and speak the truth (not 'their' truth, but objective truth backed up facts and data). Also, it is important to not give a fuck about what people say about you. The ability to do that I admit comes with age, but it is an important skill to master.
Yes, that is true. Which prove they are authoritarians. They are not interested in dialog, they are trying to impose their opinions on everyone else. Which is why its extra important to STAND UP, push back and be counted.
Breathtakingly lucid. Well done! I have lived in this shadow for many years but finally reason seems to be appearing. I taught at Grouard mission for a year and had an excellent rapport with students and community both Indigenous and Western European. We had no heat in our teacherage till November 10th. My son was born on Nov.16. Our water came from a slough dugout where the indigenous students swam. We laughed this off and found ways around the difficulty, we are Brits. there are no problems just answers! When we left Grouard the Indigenous trustee, Leona Willier and her husband John asked us to board their daughter while she attended U of Albert in a nursing program. Later with my X country skiing connections I assisted by transporting and boarding members of the TEST, Territorial ski training program as they made their way from Inuvik through Edmonton and on to Toronto. I met the Bullocks and Cockneys of the world , fine young men. I regret nothing.
IMO Marxists needed this genocide a narrative to get people to not pay attention to their unbelievable freaking violence. Popular academics like Noam Chomsky deny many actual genocides by socialists. Many of them read Howard Zinn's a people's history get there false communist ahistorical narrative.
Michelle Stirling writes that “to date, we have no archival records of children being reported missing by Indigenous parents in those years.” Our country has gone nuts about missing and murdered children at residential schools but there are none. If a child had gone missing or was murdered at school, someone would have noticed or said something. Stirling’s article is sterling.
Good. Now prove the above in your Arbitration in front of as many lawyers as you can obtain for that arbitration. None of them will be able to refute you. As to "nuts", speak for yourself. I'm still waiting for you at Widdowson's web site.
Your Friend
Kevin
thank you
Once again, a very good article. But you're still "playing defence", Michelle. That is not the way to do anything "legal", given that THE LAW (not people) presumes that you and CANADA are entirely innocent. So you are never required to "play defence" in legal matters. Always move to offence or counter-offence ASAP, or as soon as you see any weakness in the adversary's case. As to your cases:-
You went from 2 badly defensive articles to a 3rd entirely PERFECT article (both legal offence and legal defence well demonstrated) when you wrote MANUFACTURING A GENOCIDE; The BALKANIZATION of CANADA. You got about 65 replies to that article --- admittedly I wrote quite a few of them --- which is large for a substack article. You amplify the further, but entirely unnecessary, defence in this article [No Pride in Genocide]. Let's see if I can get you to understand something of offence --- having failed, so far, with Frances Widdowson, James McMurtry and Hymie Rubenstein. Just look at the title of your previous article ----> "manufacturing a genocide".
In legalese your title could be called FABRICATING EVIDENCE OF A GENOCIDE, which is a "Type E" criminal code offence --- a 14 year maximum sentence. Most legally untrained people think of "evidence" as DNA, or blood spatters, or fingerprints, or bodies in graves, which is called MATERIAL EVIDENCE. But every bit of that sort of material evidence requires the expert testimony of an expert witness who gives explanatory testimony; a.k.a. evidence; to enable inexpert lawyers and judges of The Court to interpret/understand physical or material evidence. So the legal definition of EVIDENCE is:- "'Evidence' or 'Statement' means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not; [Definitions; 'evidence'; Sect. 118. Criminal Code of Canada]
HENCE what Murray Sinclair said at/to the CBC, and to the entire country, on June 1st, 2021 and what he said to the Indian and Northern Affairs "emergency" Committee, of Canada's Commons, on June 3rd 2021, is what the Law calls both 'evidence' [Sect. 118. CCC] and what the LAW also describes as PERJURY in Sections 131.(1) and 131.(2) of Canada's Criminal Code. Yes, Michelle. One may commit perjury outside a "judicial proceeding".
The key to understanding Sinclair's offences, and those of his colluding friends, is the Highlighted Report, entitled "Where are the Children Buried?", sent to the 3 TRC Commissioners and their Executive Director, Kimberly Murray, in 2015, by Dr. Scott Hamilton of Lakehead University --- a full 6 years before the alleged "discoveries" of unmarked graves in 2021. I gave you the link to that Highlighted Report previously. Once again:
https://nctr.ca/records/reports/#highlighted-reports
Since you are a good researcher and journalist, go to page 15 of Hamilton's Report and note that the first 3 so-called "discoveries" [Kamloops, Cowessess and St. Eugene's at Cranbrook] are all named on the first paragraph of Hamilton's page 15 --- 6 years before their so-called "discoveries". Note also that all 3 "discoveries" are described as CEMETERIES by Dr. Hamilton. I can't remember how many times I have boringly told people like Widdowson, Rubenstein, McMurtry, James Pew, etc. etc. to look at that page 15 of Dr. Hamilton's Report. It literally proves that the TRC commissioners and their colluding AFN "buddies" fabricated arguable evidence of killings and suppressed evidence of neglected graveyards and/or cemeteries in order to DEFRAUD the Canadian public. None of the announcements said "unmarked graves in KNOWN CEMETERIES."
Lawyers, like Sinclair, always let legally ignorant citizens --- usually members of juries --- fill in the truth or falsehood "blanks" for themselves, when they go about legally/argumentatively fabricating evidence to support their client's cases and legally/argumentatively "casting doubts" about the truth from the other side of the case/s against their clients. Only, this time, Sinclair stepped over the line, by slipping from "argument mode" into truth mode by saying in public and on television that they had "discovered bodies" at Kamloops. He knew that was a FALSE statement, at the same time he followed up with inadmissible "hear-say" from the Truth and Reconciliation commission.
Sinclair is a crook and so are his friends, Littlechild, Wilson and Kimberly Murray of the TRC. So, too, very arguably, is Roseanne Casimir of the Secwepemc and all her friends of the Day School Survivors suit filed in Vancouver in 2012, certified as a Class Action in 2015 and settled out of Court about 13 days after the bogus "discovery" of umarked graves at Kamloops in 2021. When you, Michelle, Hymie, Frances Widdowson and James McMurtry, along with the 4 lawyers Rubenstein often quotes [Peter Best, Brian Giesbrecht, James McCrae and somebody else] put your heads together, using THE LAW as your interpreter of evidence, then you will successfully have Sinclair jailed along with his colluding scoundrel friends in the aboriginal bogus industry. Until then, you are a collection of BALKANIZED Canadian THINKERS and dull-witted "accessories after" to the crimes of Sinclair and friends.
Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne
Kevin; You make some excellent points. I am no lawyer but we do have Justice Ministries both federally and provincially. What is stopping them from filing charges?
It is good that you are "no lawyer". That makes you a truth person, rather than a "caster of doubts upon the truth" lawyer-person. And there is not one lawyer in the world whom you cannot easily contradict by hiring another opposed lawyer to argue that contradiction or contrary for you.
As to people in Justice Ministries: Nothing is stopping them. But filing charges is not their job. It is actually your job, Robert, and mine as well. Police and prosecutors may also do it, provided that people like us [truth people; not argument people, such as lawyers] convince prosecutors or policemen to do it for us. I'll explain:-
Justice ministries deal with the administration of Justice, which Aristotle tells us is, quote, "the determination of what is just". In full, ARISTOTLE: " But JUSTICE is the BOND OF MEN IN STATES, for the administration of JUSTICE, which IS THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS JUST, is the PRINCIPLE of ORDER in political society." [Politics; Book I, Ch. 2., 1253a lines 37 - 39 approximately]
The Courts, by sharp contrast, deal with injustice. Persons in JUSTICE ministries, in recontrast to Courts, don't file charges, since they only deal with justice. They leave the filing of charges --- which is all about injustice (not justice) --- to the police, crown prosecutors or private citizens, such as Hymie, Frances Widdowson, James McMurtry, James Pew (and you or me), who I, so far, have not been able to convince --- even though both Widdowson and McMurtry have been unjustly fired by Canadian citizens who are "accessories after" to the criminal code offences of Sinclair et alia.
So far, I have not been able to forge A BOND among them. It may be that they are unjust or merely confused. Who knows?
Justice Ministries, both Federal and Provincial, as you mention, only deal with Justice. The Courts, in sharp contrast, deal with psychos of both violent and non-violent varieties. Such psychopaths are "everywhere" --- Widdowson, McMurtry, Pew, etc. etc. have been interacting with such psychos for years at present. These sorts of "psychos" always gravitate towards power/control positions in hierarchies, where they may "pull strings" from behind the backs of duller, more directly-acting people, who may or may not be psychopaths themselves. Sometimes the direct actors are simply gullible easily-deceived individuals, who think they are doing right in "cancelling" people like Frances Widdowson or James McMurtry. In those cases you may always back track to the psycho, whose "orders" they are taking, by pressuring the "flunky" direct actor.
The "psycho" will protect the "flunky", which Frances Widdowson's researcher documented, when Murray Sinclair told members of the House of Commons that the RCMP were "intimidating" the ground penetrating radar specialist at Kamloops. Typical "non-violent-psycho" maneuver on the part of Sinclair.
So for JUSTICE to be DONE, as well as to be seen, in order to be DONE, a bond among free, honest and relatively courageous individuals must be formed. If that bond does not form, they are no more or less "just" than Sinclair, Littlechild, Wilson, Murray and AFN friends. When that bond fails to form, LADY JUSTICE moves from the Courts of a Country into the streets and then you get FRANCE in the last couple of weeks. Lady JUSTICE is scary-strange. I prefer Lady WISDOM, who was the muse of Socrates --- the lady in white who told Socrates, in a dream, that he would return to fertile Phthia (the home of Achilles) on the 3rd day. [Plato; Crito, 44b]
So if you want justice to be done, and seen to be done, you have to pack the Courts with truth people, rather than the dismal liars who trudge in and out of Courtrooms and into and out of jails every day and all the time at "Courts". If you won't do that, then the liars will always win at Court --- which is "just" for a society filled with liars and/or cowards.
Kevin
Kevin; I think you understand the 'mechanics' of the court system better than I. I did,however, talk to a crown prosecutor and an MPP who is a lawyer, about the possibility of filing charges. I think most informed folks are aware, as soon as the word 'Indian' is spoken people run for the exits. Where I live there is an unused MNR facility on the lake bordering the city. This facility is being offered to the Algonquins as part of the land claim. I asked the city to speak up and keep this great lakeside facility for city use. Not one word has been spoken by the mayor or any councillor in support of keeping this building which we paid for and can surely be put to good use. I am afraid we are a spineless bunch.
Filing charges against whom? For what offence? Does MNR mean Ministry of Natural Resources? I presume so, As to Court 'mechanics' they are dead easy.
They are adversarial legal syllogisms invented; more correctly applied; by medieval students of Aristotle in Canon Law Tribunals. The major premises of such legal syllogisms are Statutes. The minor premises are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The conclusions of such legal syllogisms are called Verdicts or Judgments --- sometimes even precedents.
There are 2 simple factors [1. Question of Law and 2. Matter/s of Fact] with, at minimum, 2 opposed alternatives in an adversarial system.
Follow the math --- 2 factors X 2 (adversarial) alternatives = 4 possible judgment types/kinds. Same kind of thing as Gregor Mendel's pea garden:-
2 traits in peas: 1, Shape and 2. Color with 2 alternatives for each factor/trait. Smooth or Wrinkled for shaped. Yellow or Green for color. Ergo 4 possible kinds of peas 1. Smooth and Green; 2. Smooth and yellow; 3. Wrinkled and Green and 4. Wrinkled and Yellow. 4 kinds of peas.
Similarly with Court Judgements. 2 Factors (question of law; matter of fact) with 2 alternatives (given adversarial arguments) THUS: 1. Rational Argument backed up by a Statute + True statement = just judgment. 2. Irrational Argument without Statute back-up + False Statement = doubly false or absurd judgment. 3. Rational Argument backed up by Statute + False statement = false judgment; and 4. Irrational Argument without statute back up + true, but irrelevant, statement = irrational judgment.
3 of the 4 kinds of Court judgments are errors. Lawyer seldom pick or argue for the absurd judgment. But, often the false judgment vs. the irrational judgment comes to court, or the false vs. the absurd judgment or the irrational vs the absurd. Thus, you can get a lot of bad court judgments which is why nobody, in the old days, ever let lawyers anywhere near law making.
I'm not so sure the courts in Canada are the arbiters of truth as you appear to state. Is that what you state? We are in the legal mess, particularly in largely untreatied BC, we are in today (and for the foreseeable future) precisely because of court decisions that upheld aboriginal right and/or title.
See my long comment above, Alison. I don't know about those Court decisions of which you speak. They may be fine for all I know. But I do know that Murray Sinclair is a crook because of his CBC commentary of June 1st 2021 and his receipt of Scott Hamilton's Report to his Commission of 2015.
San Francisco Men’s Choir sings “We are coming for your children”. R I I I I G H T …
.
EIGHT members of the S.F. Men’s Choir have been convicted of crimes against children.
.
https://rumble.com/v2yotly-san-francisco-mens-choir.html
.
I guess we Canadians will not annex San Francisco. We can just go to the local library and watch "Drag Queen Story Time" along with "brilliant" Canadian parents who bring their children to such culturally uplifting events. Just imagine a truly Monarchist Canada. Fire all the useless politicians and directly petition his Majesty to hire only intelligent bureaucrats. Way better than any dull-witted Republic. Way more cost efficient as well.
KB
ALISON MALIS WROTE: I'm not so sure the courts in Canada are the arbiters of truth as you appear to state. Is that what you state?
Kevin's REPLY: No! I do not state that Courts are truth arbiters. Far from it. Truth people seldom attend "Courts". Truth people can tell the truth and determine legal judgments from the law if they know the relevant law. The law will give them the correct common law morality judgment as long as both potential parties both admit the truth and acknowledge the law.
Thus they do not require any recourse to a minimum of 3 low I.Q.'d lawyers --- 2 arguing lawyers and 1 judge-lawyer at minimum --- of which NONE know the truth and 2 of the 3 lawyers will argue against the truth from opposites sides of each case. How could those 3 low I.Q..'d clowns know anything about the truth, let alone be arbiters of it?
I'll grant you that many of them know the law --- at least much of the law. But they know nothing of the truth. Both lawyers on both sides of any case of law spend all their time attempting to cast so-called reasonable doubts about the truth on the other side of the case. They also inevitably counsel their clients to stay off of the witness stand --- where one is legally required to tell the truth.
Does any of the above "sound" like such clowns are remotely interested in the truth or being arbiters of the truth? They love the legal presumption of innocence, which is why they tell their clients --- don't tell the truth on the witness stand. You don't have to. Stay safely "presumed innocent".
Lawyers also love to trip up honest but easily confused witnesses who are against their clients, when those honest (easily confused ) witnesses try to tell the truth. Again, there is no truth in lawyers. That is not their job at Court. They want to catch you in a falsehood or, at least, the appearance of a falsehood. So, no Virginia, lawyers are not truth arbiters.
Why do I call them "low I.Q.'d Clowns"??? It is an occupational hazard. Geniuses do not go to Court to settle their arguments. Simple honest people do not go to Court to settle their arguments. So who goes to Court, or is taken to Court by cops or prosecuting lawyers? Would you believe mental and/or moral degenerates --- which is the truth for/in the majority of cases of law?
How, in God's Holy Name, can lawyers "improve their I.Q.s" by either prosecuting the cases of mental and/or moral degenerates or defending the cases of mental and/or moral degenerates??? Lawyers start out "smart enough". But after 10 years of prosecuting or defending the law cases of IDIOTS and another, say 10 years, of judging the cases of idiots, most of them have the I.Q.s of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Does that sound like I think that such scoundrels are truth arbiters?
I'll admit one thing though. They are much easier to "wake up", at Court, than any of Hymie Rubenstein, Frances Widdowson or James McMurtry. But, by the time they "awaken", they awaken to the fact that they've broken their own precious laws, because they do not listen to lying litigants --- only to lawyers who neither know, nor tell the truth. So the strangest "things", that they never see in their Courts, are "guys" like Widdowson, Rubenstein and McMurtry. And the presumed lying litigant who knows the truth and is completely and utterly disgusted by them and their dullness knocks the poor prima donnas for a loop.
They wanna see more of that kind of "philosophy stuff", because it reawakens some of the reasons why they gravitated to "the law" in the first place. But philosophy is non-adversarial debate. It is, by law, illegal at Court. They are required, by law, to throw the cases of philosophers out of Court. But they don't want to do it. So they break their own laws and still don't know the truth. Of course it is the collusion law, about which I talk so much, that they breach.
Kevin
There are thousands of young Canadians from rural Canada who lived in bording houses while attending high school and only got home at Christmas and summer. I know some of them. I knew many of the Indian kids who attended Shingwauk Residential School. One boy who attended some classes at my old high school said Shingwauk was the best place he ever lived. People who have nothing good to say about the Residential schools never tell us what the living conditions were like for the kids who stayed home on the Reserves. Even today look at the number of kids who have to be taken into foster care custody.
The biggest insult (and there are many) was the vote taken on October 22,2022 in Federal Parliament declaring Canada a 'genocidal country' . We are far from it. We have created a modern ,industrial nation that provides opportunities and care for everybody who is lucky enough to live here. How many Canadian Indians are packing up and moving to Reserves in the U.S.?
... which is why Sitting Bull described the Canadian American border as the "medicine line". Bad medicine, south of the line. Good medicine, north of the line. But that guy was an actual Indian --- not an "apple", like Murray Sinclair. [ You call me a "settler" and I'll call you an "apple" and we can "ad hominem" each other all day long. KB]
Kevin