It seems lately when it comes to the local inquiry into the shooting of Dudley George all we seem to hear is how the premier at the time ( Mike Harris) was to blame, for the violent and tragic outcome at the occupied provincial park. Before I go farther, it does seem the Army Camp lands should have been returned to the Stoney Point natives long ago . This may have saved a tragic death, and a 15 million dollar inquiry into why it happened. However one could easily wonder if demands from some natives will ever end. Common sense would dictate an illegal takeover of a provincial park would bring grief upon any common man, however today's political correctness and the appeasement that follows minorities (most of the time) may lead some of them to believe they are above the law.
Reading MPP Marcel Beaubien's testimony refreshes ones memory when it comes to the comments and feelings of friends and acquaintances that where floating around at the time of the take over. Not all events leading up to the gunfire filled night of Sept 6 1995 where the "white mans" problem, and I sincerely hope 15 million dollars worth of testimony doesn't end in a one sided exercise in appeasement, and an excuse for anarchy.
I have to give Marcel credit he told it like it was, and if anyone wonders why many people here have little sympathy for the native cause, these are a few of the reasons :
(Taken from the transcripts)
(Lawyer) Q: And perhaps you could tell us if you
12 could, describe where the -- the piece of property or the
13 lands in question were located relative to the Park and
14 the Army Camp?
15 (Marcel) A: Well, it would be -- it's located
16 west of -- of the Army Camp but closer to the Kettle
17 Stony --
18 Q: Point Reserve?
19 A: That's right, yeah.
20 Q: All right. And how did this matter
21 come to your attention as a member of Provincial
22 Parliament?
23 A: Well, like I said it was brought to
24 my attention by friends and they were very frustrated
25 also and -- and I shared their -- their concern and
281
1 their frustration because some of them, I don't know,
2 some of them lived there for a number of years.
3 They had -- they thought they had a clear
4 title to their land and I'm sure when they purchased the
5 property that they had paid the land transfer tax. And I
6 thought in Ontario that once you had a clear deed to your
7 property that you should be able to enjoy that property
8 and these people were not able to do that.
9 And I felt that the Provincial Government
10 had some type of responsibility to help these people in
11 defraying some of the costs. There were some tremendous
12 amount of legal costs involved with that which they
13 pocketed themselves.
14 And I think we all have to look at ourself
15 and ask each -- each one of us has to ask the question:
16 If I were in their boat or in their situation how would I
17 feel, especially when I have a piece of paper that tells
18 me that I've got a legal deed to my property? I paid all
19 the taxes and somebody comes along and says, No. And the
20 Province is sitting on the sideline doing nothing.
21 So, it was a -- you know I could -- I
22 could see why the people are frustrated with that
23 particular situation.
24 Q: All right. And just so that we're
25 all familiar with what you're speaking of do -- do -- can
282
1 you just tell us firstly who you understood the parties
2 to this dispute to be and what the dispute was about so
3 far as you understood it?
4 A: Well, as far as I understood it
5 apparently the -- you know again, you know I'm going back
6 and I haven't refreshed but I -- I think the -- the suit
7 was somewhat unique because as opposed to having a land
8 claim on that property each individual property owner was
9 being sued by the natives which --
10 Q: By which organization?
11 A: Pardon?
12 Q: By -- by whom were they --
13 A: By the natives. By the --
14 Q: Can you be more specific?
15 A: The Kettle Stony.
16 Q: The First Nation?
17 A: That's right, yeah.
18 Q: All right.
19 A: And so it certainly presented an
20 interesting twist because it was not your typical land
21 claim and so consequently people were left to themselves
22 to -- and they had to fend for themself also, you know,
23 financially and legally and everything
Q: And can you tell us in -- in general
5 what those concerns were that were being conveyed to you
6 as MPP?
7 A: Well aside from the -- the claim,
8 there was no doubt that there was some intimidation,
9 some harassment, some break-ins, people were being threatened
10 in some cases.
11 And these are the complaints that, you
12 know, that I was fielding from the constituents.
13 Q: All right. And did they tell you who
14 -- who they believed were causing the intimidation and
15 the other acts you -- you've indicated?
16 A: Yeah. In -- in this case the finger
17 was pointed at -- at the Natives.
18 Q: And any particular group?
19 A: Well that fluctuated because some of
20 them were familiar to the people that lived there but
21 others they weren't -- you know, they didn't know who
22 they were. They were new faces.
23 Q: All right. And did the constituents
24 draw a link between this activity and the West Ipperwash
25 litigation?
285
1 A: Well I think some people alluded to
2 the fact that, you know, maybe it was part and parcel but
3 I, you know, I'm only going by what the people were
4 telling me. I don't know. Like I said I don't live in
5 the area so it's something that I did not certainly
6 experience myself.
I went to one of the landowner meetings at a local Arena I didn't own land in West Ipperwash but I certainly sympathized with the residents that worked hard and payed taxes, just to have one land claim ruin their peaceful lives and many of those people where retired it was sad to see the despair and helplessness on many landowners faces, hard work and being responsible citizens certainly earned them more respect from both the federal and provincial governments.
A letter from one of the residents taken from the transcripts.
"I retired from teaching in June of
14 1991, continued to work until she was
15 diagnosed with stomach cancer in June
16 of 1992. We made our house at West
17 Ipperwash beach our principle residence
18 during the summer of 1992.
19 We were served with a papers for the
20 land claim of the Chippewa of Kettle
21 and Stony in December of 1992."
Comments on the matter from Marcel :
4 for most people, home ownership is the largest investment
5 that they make.
6 And if you're like this person here,
7 basically retired, probably on a fixed income and all of
8 a sudden your largest investment that you work a whole
9 lifetime is being challenged, I would strongly suggest to
10 everyone in this audience here today, that it would
11 create some increase of stress level, I would think.
Also some enlightening comments from Marcel taken from his letter to the Attorney General:
"Tensions have again escalated over
13 this past weekend and my constituents
14 have the following concerns."
15 And then we talk about the costs involved
16 with the civil action:
3. That the residents are faced with a
21 situation whereby they cannot sell
22 their properties because of the legal
23 action taken
4. That residents have to pay property
25 taxes while the ownership of their
1 property is in the hands of the Court
2 system."
6. There's a lot of intimidation going on
10 at the moment and the residents feel
11 threatened."
12 Again, this is what I'm passing on from
13 what I'm hearing from the residents
According to the residents:
15 "Law enforcement is basically non
16 existent and the OPP does not seem too
17 keen in getting involved."
18 And lastly:
19 "Residents are stressed out and this
20 situation is becoming unbearable."
Well this may not directly have anything to do with the shooting of Dudley George it certain shows why sympathy towards natives in this area, rightly so is lacking.
The property owners finally won Aug 18, 1995.
Camp Ipperwash and a few comments from Marcel pertaining to the area, and the attitudes of residents leading up to Sept 6
Q:(Lawyer) Now, you indicated that prior to your
11 election as MPP, you were aware that there was a dispute
12 involving the local Aboriginal people concerning the Army
13 Base, the Military Base, Camp Ipperwash.
Q : All right. And did you receive any
24 inquiries or communications from your constituents
25 relative to Camp Ipperwash and this dispute?
(Marcel) Well, yeah, I did -- the subject
5 matter was raised because, again, I think a lot of people
6 in the area felt that a lot of the harassment, the
7 intimidation, the break-ins, were people that live in the
8 Army Base area.
For instance, at night, along the Army
4 Camp Base, high powered flashlights would be flashed in
5 people's homes at night, not only for seconds but for
6 long periods of time where, you know, keep them from
7 sleeping.
8 So, you know, there were certainly some
9 illegal or not legal activities going on in the area
A: Well, I think generally speaking, I
3 think people were concerned first of all part of the Base
4 had been occupied a couple years prior to this and now
5 the entire Base had been taken over and I think the
6 concern was, okay what's next.
Q (Lawyer): And -- and what was the context for
22 that discussion concerning the policing of the Base?
23 A: Well, I was receiving a lot of
24 complaints from area residents that if there was an
25 occurrence that the police would be chasing the
1 individuals and as soon as they got to the Army Base gate
2 that the police chase would stop there.
3 And that created an awful lot of
4 frustration with the people because they felt that the
5 law was not being upheld. And it was just like living in
6 a third world that all of a sudden you got to this area
7 and nothing happens.
A: Well, yeah. And to pass on the --
11 the concerns that I was receiving from my constituents
12 because I felt it was important. You -- you know, we got
13 realize that, you know, this is not 2005 it was 1995, and
14 the situation was pretty tense in the area.
15 I mean, you know, the -- the area is
16 crawling with police. I'm sure there was all kinds of
17 intelligence going on. People were living in fear.
18 People were being intimidated. People were being
19 harassed. People were being chased on the beach.
20 So, it was not a beach -- what you would
21 call a nice Sunday afternoon beach party. So, the area
22 was quite tense and --
A: So, that I can relay back to my
8 constituents. Because you got to -- you -- you must
9 realize that by this time, there's probably a -- you
10 know, calls are coming by -- probably a hundred (100)
11 calls a day coming into the constituency office.
12 Not that I mind the calls, but people are
13 asking for -- for answers and I don't really have
14 anything to give them. And I personally feel that
15 somebody somewhere must have something to give me so that
16 I can pass it on.
A: Well, I'll stand by what I wrote down
2 and I'll read it for the record. It says:
3 "Boaters came ashore for a picnic.
4 Natives pulled in on beach, pulled
5 umbrellas out and coolers and put them
6 in their car, in their car trunks.
7 Confrontation occurred between the
8 Natives and families on beach. Young
9 children were present. Natives threw
10 bottles at the boat and apparently one
11 native pointed a gun at one of the
12 boaters."
13 And that was on August the 20th, 1995, and
14 that's relayed to me by Mr. Williams.
Q:(Lawyer) All right. I see in the third
14 paragraph that this constituent is -- appears to be
15 characterizing the occupiers as hooligans. Was that your
16 interpretation?
17 A: Well, like I said again this morning,
18 some people were referring to them as terrorists, others
19 as hooligans, animals or thugs, so there was different
20 words used, I don't know which one is the proper one.
Them - being natives causing trouble
A: Well, at that particular point in
17 time, we probably talk also about constituents --
18 constituents arming themselves and I certainly didn't
19 want to see that, and I'm sure Inspector Carson did want
20 to see that. And so whether that relates to that, I
21 don't know.
22 Q: Well that --
23 A: Because there was talk, I mean, and I
24 showed evidence, letters, that we received that people
25 were willing -- and phone calls, that people were -- were
1 willing to arm themselves
Marcel pretty well sums up the situation around Ipperwash at the time and today probably still exists just in lower doses.
1 part:
2 "It appears that over the last few
3 years all levels of government have
4 adopted a non confrontational approach
5 when faced with Natives undertaking
6 illegal acts to enforce claims or air
7 grievances. This must stop. Each time
8 Natives or any other identifiable group
9 are seen to make gains through illegal
10 means with no punishment, three (3)
11 things happen.
12 The first is that the public perceives
13 members of the group have special
14 status of the laws that supposedly bind
15 all of us equally and are there to
16 ensure the peaceful co-existence of our
17 society have exceptions. The group is
18 above the law.
19 The second is that the public begins to
20 resent those who have the perceived --
21 who have the perceived special status.
22 Why can that group get away with
23 something we cannot? The public will
24 then react strongly against any group
25 member, rightly or wrongly.
1 This -- this certainly does not lend
2 itself to peaceful co-existence.
3 [Sorry]
4 The activities of a small group of
5 Natives could affect the treatment of
6 Natives across the country. Attitudes
7 will harden into a them versus us
8 mentality and solutions to problems
9 will be much harder to achieve.
10 The third consequence is that overall
11 respect for the law diminishes. There
12 is no such thing as a right without a
13 remedy, neither is there a law without
14 enforcement. If illegal acts are
15 tolerated they spread. The end result
16 is anarchy. People begin to perceive
17 the Government cannot protect them and
18 their interests. They begin to take
19 steps to protect themselves. These
20 steps can lead to tragic consequences.
21 If governments will not enforce the law
22 citizens through elected officials have
23 seen fit to live by, respect for the
24 Government and those who comprise it is
25 -- is lost."
Its funny how thw MSM skips over the comments I mentioned above. I haven't had the time to search for more goodies but I will . Socialists tend to blindly sympathize with those natives that cause these disturbances, as well as turn their heads when their "brothers" harass their white tax paying neighbor's. I'm betting they wouldn't be so sympathetic if it was their land and home under the gun, but then being hypocritical is their M.O. isn't it?
I'm not trying to generalize .Any color of people have the good and bad, so only the guilty need be offended.
Its a real shame 15 million dollars is being spent on BS, when something had to give ; It did and a native unfortunately died.
People thoughts in Forest Ont(home of the inquiry) and surrounding area will not change due to the inquiry, its just more of the same old same old socialist drivel.
Many are wondering when will this ever end, and will our children have to pick up our native neighbours tabs long after their parents are gone?
We need more politicians that say shit when they have a mouth full, and stick by their constituents like Marcel did, their story needed to be told.
The natives well its time to move on, and pick yourselves up.
Full transcript of Marcels's Jan 18 testimony here Jan 19 here, and the inquiry web page here
No comments:
Post a Comment