OF THE
TIMES
.... it was ignored by the media for months. It is even now not presented niether broad nor critical.
The first nation could use this emotional potential to achieve their independance and sovereignity.
Uniting people, I think, is not what the Haters want.This is so true!
The demonization of Muslims was so complete that their evil and backwardness has become a truism in western society. They're so beneath contempt, that their religion has been demoted to something like a perversity or evidence of subhumanism.This is so true yet it had to happen, it's like payback by the Catholics (control freaks) because in the past there were some really peaceful muslim countries or defeated catholic countries, that the muslims ruled justly. Any good catholic can't have that happening.
All of this race war stuff was stirred up during the Obama presidency, and has just in the last year recently heated up. It is old stuff from the 1960s being dragged up.(I'd appreciate it if, before commenting, you'd first read the entire article at [Link] . I presume that all can 'handle' his impoliticness. Thanks.)
None of these problems have finality, because they are fake problems designed to have no solution.
Indian Genocide Hoax This is a completely fabricated hoax, on par with George Floyd. A graveyard is not evidence of a genocide. A reader presented bullet points on the hoax in response to our previous piece: ∘ Many Indian parents wanted to and willingly sent their kids to these schools, and continued to send them there into the 1990s when they were closed (attendance became voluntary in 1947) ∘The rate of child mortality was between 1/3 and 1/5 on average in Canada in the time period in question ∘ Child mortality was even higher among Indians with no immunity to old world disease
∘ The Indians knew about these cemeteries for decades, and the only new revelation here is the use of ground penetrating radar to quantify how many graves there are
∘ Jews who lie about this hoax continue to refuse to allow ground penetrating radar to be used to test their claims of the six gorillian
" . . . may I ask what are your thoughts on the above? As re whether this was relatively dealt with back in the 60s?"Don't know, I'm simply quoting what seems to me a reliable source . . .
How Were The Schools Created?
In 1884, amendments to the Indian Act, 1876 were adopted and provided for the creation of Indian residential schools. The Indian residential schools in Canada were predominately funded and operated by the Government of Canada and Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and United churches. To a lesser scale, some Indian residential schools were funded by provincial governments or by the various religious orders.
In 1920, amendments to the Indian Act make it mandatory for every Indian child between the ages of seven and sixteen years, to attend Indian residential school.
In 1933, legal guardianship of the Indian children attending Indian residential school was assumed by the principals of those Indian residential schools, upon the forcible surrender of legal custody by parents.
Like the author, Why now? How does it fit the globalist agenda?It continues to sap peoples' self-respect and is therefore damaging to peoples' psycho-spiritual immune system.
it'll turn out to be yet another flash in the pan, quenched before any sort of widespread resolve takes place.
I disagree GOOD.OK, just my take at this point, noting the expected deluge hasn't happened even though there are well 100 sites that might be investigated.
We did not steal this land , we bought it from those who didLeaving 'you' with the legally more than niggling problem of having knowingly purchased stolen 'property'.
Aha! A question of title!"Indeedy weedy" quoth Richard Dreyfus.
Transfer of Titleand in BC we see that:
Sale by person not owner
23(1) Subject to this Act, if goods are sold by a person who is not the owner of them and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had unless the owner of the goods is by the owner’s conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.
The seller has titleAll provinces have similar acts and all have similar provisions
Under section 16(a) [2] of the Sale of Goods Act, an implied condition of the contract is that the seller (or lessor) has a right to sell the goods. Essentially, this means that the seller has title to the goods and has the right to sell them. If the seller (or lessor) does not have the right to sell the goods, and this is discovered within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled to cancel the contract and have the full purchase price returned. This protection usually applies to consumer-consumer sales (or leases) for both new and used goods; this protection always applies to business-consumer sales (or leases) for both new and used goods (since, for retailers, this right cannot be waived; see section 20(3) [3]).
Re the sale of goods, to wit, personalty and not realty, we have the UCC but as re realty titles, as per HVAC, there's some other uniform law.I'm dealing with such a personal property case right now, and I'm having a little holiday, and I read but overlooked the different matter of real property. Almost regardless though, other statues certainly exist wrt to real property, and its replevy . . . which would really be a legal sh*tshow
I never really liked property law at all.I'm not likin' it either, dealing with a $6,500.00 theft of goods this time and a much earlier $8-10,000.00 theft of non-fungible goods as I am. Both are thefts by people I'd dealt with for years; fifty in the former case and a decade in the latter.
Comment: See also: