Rue

Again someone starts a post to justify the pretense of doing one thing-calling on people to hate. Only in this case we take the word "hate" and sweeten it up a bit and use the code word "respect". Then of course we know who the target of the hate should be expressed against-aboriginal people, only in this case we use the term "Mohawk Warriors". And as usual the same people come on this post and engage in disparaging remarks and what purpose does it achieve? We already know who you are. Its always the same few who come on and disparage aboriginals. Then Jennie and Postit come on and try defend against what they see are hateful slurs and then what? Other then repeat feelings of anger and hated what does it do? So you think Mohawk Warriors are thugs, inhumane, mafia, animals, what-ever. So you demonize them. Now that they are demons, you feel you have the superior moral ground from which to hate them. So? So lets then assume you are all right. Mohawk Warriors are sub-human. Now what? Do you want to lynch them? Do you really think hating them and defining them as sub-humans will achieve anything? What the hell is the matter with us when after all these years the only way we can associate with aboriginal peoples is to insult them and attack them and suggest they are sub-human? Is that it? Have we progressed and evolved so little that this is the best we can do when dialoguing about issues with aboriginal peoples after all this years? With due respect to all of you, I can understand specific legal arguements. I can understand why someone subjected to daily disputes would be angry. I understand that. But for God's sakes do you think this will be settled by hating people? I appeal to you to use more then anger and hatred when you dialogue because until you do, you are exactly that which you put down others for.

How about quoting the Urban Dictionary? Is it not possible the Urban dictionary is also riddled with speculation? Again why do you assume the words you refer to from the Urban Dictionary are the only words to be considered as the meaning for the term " Indian Giver ". You see its this assumption that automatically because its a dictionary and the person that told you something is a native that makes me ask are you even cognizant of the fact that you reject what this man says, not because its untrue but simply because he's aboriginal. If he was white and wrote a dictionary would you then believe him? How about me? I am not native. Did it ever cross your mind that I and many other natives listen to aboriginal elders as to such things because they have NO reason to lie and its precisely because the words were directed at them that makes them provide an explanation your dictionary may not have recorded? Do you think truth is only in your eyes or terms of reference you define? Since you brought this up, lets bring it right out in the open shall we and put it to bed. Christopher Columbus mistakenly thinking he was in the “ Indies” started calling the native peoples he encountered as “indios” which is where the term Indian comes from. The word “Indian" then became used by Europeans and then white settlers as an all-purpose "bogus" or "false," without the term giver attached to it. The negative context of the use of the word flowed directly from the believe that native peoples were inferior to Europeans. The term "Indian summer" was coined simply because it meant false summer. The terms "Indian corn" and "Indian tea," are examples of how it was inserted before other words to signify that what it was describing, i.e., corn, tea, was of inferior quality. Attaching the word "Indian “ to “giver" was done to bring into question the credibility of the giver. Thomas Hutchinson an American described the term in 1765, in his book, The history of the Province of Massachusetts Bay ;"An Indian gift is a proverbial expression, signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected." However the above description was based on his false assumption that “Indians” had a custom of giving a present but expecting something in return. This was a classic example of a non-native making an assumption of an Indian custom, then deeming it so. It is a classic example of a false assumption taking on a life of its own. That does not change the fact that it is false. Repeating it over and over does not make it legitimate. More to the point his fabricated definition based on his false assumption which has been used by some to suggest “Indian giver” means one who expects something of equal or greater value in return is not the way it was ever used. When the word “Indian” was attached to “giver” it was done no differently then how it was used to describe summer or tea or how it was used in a general sense, i.e., to describe something as false, or inferior because “Indians” themselves were considered inferior and of no value. Because Indians were considered to have no value, the word used to describe them took on that meaning, no more, no less. It is a classic case of a racist concept, i.e., the belief “Indians” were of no value, fastening itself into the every day language to signify no value. Ethnic slurs transferring themselves into every day language is seen in such words as “gyped” and “Jewed” and “niggardly” and on and on. Interestingly the term “ Indian” was also used in England to insult people who had spent time in India. So enough with this bull. We all know the term “Indian giver” was created by non natives to suggest they were untrustworthy-period. It is nothing more then a racist term and so who better to understand it then the people who were the target of it. It seems to me the people targetted for the hatred are in the best position to teach us what it meant not some friggin dictionary.

But that is precisely the point JBG they aren't. The oral traditions can not be whatever the band leaders say they are. They aren't just made up subjectively just as these unwritten doctrine we rely on were not either. I am not sure where this assumption comes from that an oral tradition is simply made up. That is a misnomer and our legal courts do not dismiss this oral tradition the way you do precisely because there are ways to corroborate it. More to the point, there is nothing outlandish in these oral traditions. If some of us took the time to find out what they say, we would find they are not only accurate because historians have been able to corroborate them, but many of the traditions refer to principles we have borrowed and incorporated in our laws. The notion of duality in our federal system is an aboriginal legal concept we adapted to try reconcile our French and English laws. Many of our legal concepts as to collective rights in labour law or community rights in municipal law are based on aboriginal laws.

Keng debate without getting personally insulting please. By the way the person you insult with due respect has been far from childish in what she has presented and in fact her comments are no different then many constitutional scholars I have had to listen to in university. If you disagree with them fine but please can we resist the urge to insult that applies to me too.

Keng I am talking something different. Here is what I am saying. Look I am a Jew born the son of a refugee who only was granted citizenship even though she was badly needed as a doctor in her area because my father was a war veteran and fortunate enough to have a friend who was the son of a Senator who stepped in to prevent her extradition. So I am not in the position to lecture any Wasp or French person or aboriginal on certain things. From my perspective I am grateful to be the first generation in my family to live in freedom. So I am grateful to the British parliamentary system and its traditions for that. But I am also respectful of the province (Quebec) I grew up in where I was brought up to be bilingual and believe federalism works, but yes as Scott says I am a very typical liberal (not the political party one) and necessarily because of my heritage of course being a minority can not understand why it is not possible for federalism to accomodate the dualities, i.e., the French and English legal traditions as well as the aboriginal ones. To me the three are not incompatible at all. They may seem that way because of politics but as a lawyer, I do not see them from a purely legal sense having to be in conflict. So when I write in I admit Ken I sound a tad righteous. I do not mean to. What I am trying to say though is that the fundamental principles in our constititution recognize the collective legal rights of aboriginals not because of racial characteristics but because of the recognition of aboriginal peoples as a series of nations with their own laws that preceded our laws abd whose laws were recognized as equal laws in treaties with out predecessor British crown and then was inherited by our Canadian government. This is a matter of having entered into legal treaties with the aboriginal peoples and honouring them. It is a matter of agreeing to follow the laws we said we would with them when we signed these treaties. Aboriginal peoples' legal arguements are not based onwanting you to be responsible for anything. No one can force you or anyone else to understand their history and what happened to them. What some of us are trying to argue though is that honouring their treaties is a legal obligation we do not have the legal right to simply ignore. In 1982 when the Canadian constitution was patriated at that time we made it clear as an independent nation we recognized the treaties we signed with the aboriginal peoples. Our constitution, or concept of constitutionalism, or constitutional principles as stated in numerous court decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada all recognize the aboriginal peoples treaties. The disputes you see going on are not about whether aboriginal peoples have collective legal rights - that s a given-its finding ways to negotiate their practical application not because of anything they did, but precisely because our federal and provincial governments violated them and then placed non aboriginals in legal positions they knew would conflict with aboriginal legal rights they were breaching. So no I do not think even a bleeding heart liberal like me or any one like me who thinks the law must be followed is expecting you to do anything morally. I sound righteous but I am not that presumptious. I can't tell anyone on an individual level what to believe and how they should conduct themselves least of all you. My comments are limited to the law or sometimes I get snippy if I see someone utter racial taunts. One of the reasons I am so respectful of aboriginal culture and its legal traditions is precisely because they are actually far more advanced in many ways then our current legal system and offer some excellent formulas for us to apply in law to alleviate a wide range of conflicts or policy failures. I need to address one last issue. Our constitution is not just written. It is not limited to the Constitutional Act or Charter of Rights or subsequent legal decisions that state how it should be applied. It is also based on an oral tradition of principles that have been passed down. Our very legal system is based on oral doctrines that have been passed down. So of course is Britain's constitution in that regard. The British constitutional system is not based on one document. Its constitutional laws come from different statutes, case decisions, and a wide range of unwritten oral traditions. So to dismiss aboriginal law or customs because they have been passed down orally when our own legal system and the British legal system ours inherits all its principles from, is hippocritical. We do the same thing.

Since I am feeling scientific and technical I thought it time once and for all to provide once again summary of the relevant issues pertaining to the land claim dispute in Caledonia which some of you continue to try revise. First off, aboriginal peoples, Inuit, Metis and First Nations have distinct histories and therefore all have different legal issues behind their respective land claims. Within the 633 First Nation Bands (52 nations, 50 languages) each have their own spiritual, political and historic traditions and many with different claims and legal concerns. The Haudenosaunee ( 6 Nations Confederacy) have always had their own laws, customs, territories, polical organization and economy. It is a fact that the Great Law of Peace which comes from this confederacy was used as a reference and basis for the U.S. Constitution and for that matter in certain Canadian constitutional precepts, contrary to the beliefs of some of you that aboriginal legal traditions are inferior. It is also a fact that the status of aboriginal peoples legal rights including their constitutional status have yet to be fully defined in our constitution and that their collective rights to land pre-date the Constitution Act and did not end once the Constitution Act was passed. The aboriginal peoples maintain they are a nation that signed treaties with the Canadian government and its predecessor, and so that it deals with Canada on a government-to-government basis no different then when their ancestors negotiated as equals with Britain in the 1700’s. It is an historic fact that the British signed treaties with the aboriginal peoples guaranteeing native rights to land and self-government which were incorporated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and then subsequently in Canada’s constitution. Those rights continue and the Supreme Court of Canada has said so. It is a fact that the Haldimand Tract consisting of 385,000 hectares was granted to the 6 Nations of the Grand River by the crown in 1784 as pay-back for their support during the American Revolution. This tract of land consists of 6 miles from either side of the Grand River to Lake Erie. That grant stated and I quote; ”which them & their Posterity are to enjoy for ever." It was given to the aboriginal peoples forever. Isn't it interesting we Westerners coined the racist term " Indian Giver " because in this case we certainly acted like "European givers" because in 1792, Simcoe unilaterallyreduced the size of the land granted tio 1,110 km² or 111,000 hectares. We then know in 1796, 6 Nations Chief Joseph Brant was given a power of attorney to sell some of the land and invest the proceeds of that sale. WE then know in 1825, the Crown then approached the 6 Nations because it wanted to develop what is now Highway 6 and was then called Plank Road. The Six Nations then agreed to lease half a mile of land on each side for the road, but it never agreed to sell the land. Lt.-Gov. John Colborne then agreed to this lease but his successor, Sir Francis Bond Head, interestingly became upset witht he aboriginals for refusing to sell it and did not. In 1840 the government then recommended the creation of an 8,000 hectare reserve on the south side of the Grand river and the rest of the land sold or leased. Then on January 18, 1841, the Crown claims the 6 Nations Council agreed to sell all the lands outside the ones set for the reserve based on an agreement the government would sell the land and invest the money for them. The Crown’s claim that the aboriginal peoples agreed to sell the land was of course an out and out lie evidenced by the fact that on both Feb. 4 and July 7, 1841 , the 6 Nations petitioned against the surrender insisting they never agreed to sell the land only lease it. In fact in 1843, they again petitioned the Crown stating they needed a 22,000-hectare reserve and repeating their express intent to keep and lease a tier of lots on each side of Plank Road (Highway 6) as well as additional tracts of land in the Haldimand area. In 1844, suddenly a document surfaces which was supposed to evidence that 47, 6 Nations Chiefs signed a document authorized the sale of land to build Plank Road. Once again faced with the aboriginal peoples refusing to sell the land the Crown engages in tactics to try get the land away from the aboriginal peoples. We then know after 1845, despite the protests of the Six Nations people, the government unilaterally sold Plank Road and surrounding lands to third parties. Apparently in 1848 the land allegedly comprising the current development in dispute, was sold to George Marlot Ryckman for the amount of 57 pounds and 10 shillings. We then know in 1850 the Crown passed a proclamation setting the extent of reserve lands to about 19,000 hectares, which was agreed to by the Six Nations chiefs. In 1992, Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land it named Douglas Creek Estates. The Six Nations in 1995, then sued the federal and provincial governments over the land. We also know the subdivision plan for Douglas Creek Estates was registered with title to the property guaranteed by the province of Ontario in 2005. The 6 Nations have contended from day 1 they never authorized sale of the land and that alleged document where the Chiefs allegedly sold the land was signed under false pretenses, i.e., the document was misrepresented as a lease not a sale. The alleged document that would be needed to prove the aboriginal Chiefs authorized the sale of land to then make the Henco claim legitimate would not hold up in a court of law and everyone except some of the posts on this forum realize that and this is precisely why the Ontario and Federal governments won't enforce the land title Henco has. They know Henco was given a land title without clear title being transferred. What we do know despite the references to irelevant archeological findings and racial taunts, is that the aboriginal peoples have continually maintained their collective rights to the land and are doing what any one of us would do if we feel someone was trying to steal what is rightfully ours, take it to court. The people who bought the sub-division did nothing wrong but their land title is not legitimate as it was not free and clear when it was given to them. It is important to note, if the 6 Nations win their claims which they will, nothing preclclude Henco froms eeking compensation from the government. The aboriginal collective claim will not simply go away because some of you believe governments can engage in fraud and lies to illegallyontain land. Lying by a government won’t change history or vitiate the collective rights in this case. What I find interesting is that the 6 Natiions are portrayed as racist or unreasonable in this situation simply because they choose to defend what is legally their land and protect themselves from a government that lied and acted under false pretenses against them. Of course some of us believe when government breaks a law to justify stealing and selling stolen land that this is acceptable. Others such as myself who were brought up to believe in constitutionalism believe no government is superior to the law and governments must abide by the law and can not create new laws based on breaking other laws. To some of us this is not an issue where we ridicule aboriginal peoples because as civilized law abiding people we do not wish to be party to an historical legacy that was created by cheating and stealing.

Just what do you base your assumption your version of historic events is the only one to be believed? Or am I being to scientific and technical with you? Provide me some historic references for your version. I am making it a point to call you out on it, because this assumption your version is the only version of what happened is something once and for all perhaps we should bring out in the open. It seems anytime some of you discuss history, you just can't resist referencing it in a way that taunts and ridicules and infers your version is the only version and any other version is to be dismissed. Excuse me if I do not simply assume your version as absolute gospel. The last time I looked not only was I not sure what you were quoting since you refer to provide specifics as to your historic references, but I am also tempted to state right now without knowing what you quote, that what you quote is probably based on some Eurocentric version of history that tends to present only one side of the story. You bet I have problems with people who pose as superior and absolute when discussing history.

There we just could not resist the taunt could we. You of course we would assume are technical and scientific. Then we must assume after that this knowledge of science and technicality makes you superior. The problem is some of us are from your same world and we do read and we are scientific and we are technical and we find what you say racist bullshit. Is that too technical? Either provide a specific reference to the archeological information you refer to, or admit you don't have any. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to try avoid providing references to back up what you say with racist taunts.

The above is bull shit. You want to discuss the legal issues do so. Why is it this always evolves into racist taunts? Why? Have you seen anyone when advancing arguements as to the collective rights of aboriginals referred to themselves as superior to you? Well? Now I will say this loud and clear - no aboriginal has ever portrayed their spirituality to you in a way that suggests they will not share it and it makes them feel superior to you and you know that. More to the point, whether you wish to try understand their spiritual values depends solely on you not them. Certainly your above comments would indicate you ridicule them so its doubtful you would ever open your mind to them. Some of us to though and I can assure you I may never understand many of their spiritual insights but it is a privilege when I am allowed to try learn some of them and for those of us that try, it makes us humble not arrogant. Now you want to try change the subject and insult aboriginal people on this forum I am asking you to stop because I know you have a wonderful mind and are better then that. Don't go that level Dance. You have too good a mind to do that. Now just so you know the most heavily represented people in our criminal legal system are young black men, followed by aboriginals. Most aboriginals are arrested and convicted of non violent offences related to drug and alcohol abuse with sentences of 30 days or less. Our criminal system simply reflects the fact that there is a very real social problem. Taunting people who see their fellow people engaged in self-destructive behaviour because of despair directly related to socio-economic conditions that flow from the breached treaties and failure of federalism to properly define aboriginal collective rights so they can get on with their lives nad become self-sufficient does what? The people in jail because of drinking and drugs are sick people. I would hope we would all be more concerned with trying to find a way to change the conditions that lead to the despair that causes them to drink rather than ridicule them and use it as an opportunity to ridicule an entire people. The last time I looked no one people had a monopoly on its members being alcoholic, drug addicted, unemployed, etc. The difference in this case though is what you ridicule is most certainly a cause and effect phenomena of the very same laws we now need to reform. This is not an us against them situation. If you think you can create a Canadian identity by trying to ridicule such an essential part of it, you have missed the point entirely.

Mr. Thermoopyle states and I quote; " oral tradition and primitive accounting methods are notoriously unreliable. As has been seen time and time again these methods become contaminated and incaccurate due to the passing of time alone." Perhaps Mr. Themopyle you are unaware that int he United Kingdom as is the case in Canada and other nations, many legal doctrine, i.e., constitutional doctrine, have been passed down orally and are not considered to have been contaminated. More to the point Christians have proven even if you write something down, i.e., in a Bible, it most certainly gets contaminated as by the time it is written, it has in fact been re-written and re-edited so many times it also has been contaminated. Your sweeping assumption that oral traditions necessarily become contaminated is based on your Western conceptualization of truth and history. The fact that we Westerners tend to be unable to repeat anything without changing it does not mean aboriginals do. In fact some would argue maintaining historic records through oral passage is more accurate as it requires more disciplined training and teaching that one takes for granted when something is written. More to the point Sir, what someone writes and how it becomes interperated over the years of course changes. Being in writing is no guarantee of accuracy. "At root they all depend on someone telling someone else something" Are you describing the British case precedent system we inherited by any chance? Because if you want to criticize aboriginals for passing things down, you better first look at how your own common law system works and how it originated. You stated; "I'm sure everyone is aware of the old experiment. Take a group of people, tell one of them something, tell them to pass it on to the next. By the time it gets to the last person it usually bears very little resemblance to what was originally said." Yes this is true of how Christians have behaved with their WRITTEN religion and WRITTEN LAWS, but there are numerous cultures whose laws and traditions were passed orally and still remain the foundation of their cohesive societities. Your comments necessarily make cultural assumptions based on your belief that all cultures thing and speak the same way. They do not. If you took the time to find out how rich and complex and developed aboriginal oral tradition is rather then assuming what it is and making pronouncements based on your assumptions as to what it is, you might just find the clarity and richness in the oral message far more poignant and understandable then many of our written codes and written words. Or put in a cultural reference you might understand, listening to a drama on the radio may seem absurd to someone brought up to watch t.v., just as reading a book may be absurd to someone brought up on 10 second inter-net sound bites, but it doesn't make it inferior or less meaningful, it simply means you yourself may not understand it. The fact you in this case don't understand it doesn't make it inferior. I say this as someone who comes from a tradition of the Talmud, where laws were written down. The Talmud it would be absurd to say, is no better or worse a system of passing on tradition then oral tales. In fact the Talmud may be written, but you can't just read it - it depends on oral tradition as well. As for the Bible, look at it. Do you really think its being written makes it capable of being trusted and accepted verbatum?

Why is the concept of caretaker hilarious? Then again maybe you also don't understand the non native legal concepts of guardianship or trusteeship as well? How about the cept "fiduciary relationship"? Is that funny too?

So? Again the population number, what-ever one you would agree on, does not change the legal issues in dispute.

There is none. "Reliable sources" is a lot like the guy who is always quoted in National Inquirer when they want to say some actor is gay or has a drug problem, etc. More to the point even if Indiana Jones does show up to prove this archeological claim being advanced it does not change the legal issues.

You mind explaining to me how any of the above changes the legal issues pertaining to the collective rights of any of these people you mentioned?

1-it is possible for there two be compatible legal regimes so that aboriginals to have the right to opt out or in-there is numerous precedent for legal systems that allow opting out and in 2-medicare is not predicated on whether you wish to vote or not 3-your comments mix up the legal concepts of entitlement to social and medical benefits, voting, citizenship and make them seem all the same when they are not 4-your description of healing with tobacco smoke is inaccurate 5-in Ontario we have now a new set of health laws that allows people to choose what system of healing they wish use-medicare does not pay for all these treatments, only some based on financial reasons-for you to suggest medicare pays for all non native medical treatments as you have inferred is not true-it does not for example pay for physiotherapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy and massage therapy or cosmetic surgery or eye exams or psychological services not conducted by a psychiatrist 6-someone can be Canadian and believe in the efficacy of native medical approaches 7-defining one's citizenship by the treatment they choose is absurd, what next- do we define Canadians as being Canadian because they engage in colonic irrigations?

Again with due respect some of us would argue it is quite accurate. As for your arbitrary designation of 10 years, the law as to use and ownership of land is not that easily defined and in this case most certainly would not be defined that way because of the application of other laws other then the one you refer to.

She is not being dishonest. Don't say that. I have tried to explain it another way for you. I am trying hard. some of the questions you ask are hard to explain but I am trying. She is not a liar. She is talking about some very honourable principles based on concepts far more fluid and complex then tinfoil hats. The problem is when you try explain colour to a blind man, its hard to find the words.

In law its not that native peoples are more indigenous than you. What has happened though is there is a hierarchy of laws though. What we are saying is the native peoples were a collective with an existing framework of laws that existed BEFORE the ones the British and French brought. The legal dispute is not about natives being more native. Not at all. It is simply put the fact that when the British decided to take it upon themselves to give ownership to the land to the King of England, the treaties that this King and his heirs signed with the native peoples did not simply confer absolute ownership of the entire land to the King-on the contrary it recognized the collective rights of the aboriginal peoples to the land and set up a parallel legal system not to take away aboriginal rights but to run parallel with them. The legal arguements the native peoples make are not about stating they are more Canadian or more anything-what they are stating and it is a legal as well as historic fact, is that their legal system of collective rights preceded the ones we now try enforce, and as a condition for the creation of our country we must certainly agreed in numerous treaties to recognize these collective rights preceded our laws and would continue after confederation as well. It is interesting to ask how does one define an aboriginal because the federal government took it upon itself yet again to create a law only this time telling aboriginals how they MUST define themselves. It is absurd because its like passing a law telling me as a Jew how I will define myself as a Jew. Last time I looked in Israel that debate is still going on and will never end. Aboriginals and their nations have many ways to define their collective identity and links to their past, present and future heritage. The problem is it is not linear and no it is not based on British laws we are used to in inheritancy laws with wills and estates. It is far more fluid and complex then that for it deals with the definition of who one is by what he forms a relationship to other then himself or herself. Its a holistic definition not a seperatist one. In our laws, we define by seperating and distinguishing something and defining it by explaining what makes it different. In aboriginal conceptualization of identity its defined by explaining what it forms part of-so you want a simple formula like the one they have tried to shove down their throat in Bil 31 of course it won't work-it completely ignores the reality of what it means to be aboriginal and is all about how we non natives want to define them. I would say in purely simple easy to understand terms someone native has a connection to a way of life that preceded the current life. Too airy fairy? Well then would you like people to have to take a test to prove they are native? Should we blood test everyone for their dna or should we come up with a more practical and fair legal solution whereby it can be defined as lineage through either the mother or father back to the peoples who preceded the Eurpeans and others. Native peoples define it as a spiritual connection and yet we non natives are obsessed in turning that into a genetic defintiion. Its no different then when someone asks me what makes you a Jew and I say, depends who you ask, some feel its because my mother is Jewish and jews define their Jewishness by whether their mother was a Jew or not. But so what/ what the people who convert or whose mothers were not Jewish but there father was? What about me? I go to Israel and I am not considered Jewish by the Rabbincial courts because some old smelly guy with a beard and a bad hair cut and a penchant for wearing black clothes tells me I need to do certain rituals to be able to call myself one. Uh yah. This guy is going to tell me I am not Jewish? To me being Jewish is not a religious definition, its partially cultural, partially spiritual, partially biological and partially socio-political. To me what really makes me Jewish is my collective link to the identity and values all Jews share. Yah good luck defining that in a law. How about instead of imposing laws on aboriginals to tell them how to define themselves we let them just once explain to us what it means and then codify that as a guideline but not an absolute limitation. And lest you think everyone is scrambling to be native because tis so great- I will give you a hint- that aint happening. Collective Rights can and do fade away when the people they are attached to fade away-that can happen naturally or by enforced genocide or environmental catastrophe. Ideally we hope it only happens with the first category and peacefuly and gracefully in due time and as it fades, so to does a new set of collective rights come about to attach to a new natural order of things. These collective rights are as simple as the notion of flowing water. You can let it flow naturally and form its own shape, or you can try block it and dredge it and force a shape on it -the point is water will always go back and follow the path it originally intended. Law or collective rights which attach to the life elements of a people or collective of people is no different.

I see what you are saying but I think there is a solid legal arguement to make that the federal government does not have to specify the transfer of mineral rights for the native peoples to have a claim to them. You are technically correct as to your point but there are exceptions to this rule. You are also quite correct when you say possession can mean (or more acurrately stated, can be taken to mean) ownership or it could simply be considered usage without ownership. Again I think you are absolutely bang on explaining this ambiguity is at the pith and substance of the Haldimand legal dispute. Again your statement that Mr. Brant faield to obtain legal title is true as was the Monarch defining usage without ownership, but to me that is all a moot point. See to me, I believe it is accurate to say no non native Canadian really owns land. What we do is lease it from the King or Queen. It sounds like we have title to it but its not absolute. Her Majesty owns the land and at her pleasure she allows us title to it over anyone else BUT her. As well your federal, provincial and municipal governments can seize your land and not even compensate you. Then there are some laws that allow for example the railway crown corporation in the name of the federal government the right to seize your land if next to a railway and there has been a spill or they need it for a disaster or some other reason. Now we non natives believe in this concept of private ownership of land as evidenced by a piece of paper. The problem is there is also an equally as legal valid system of laws as to land in aboriginal law. That system can be traced back to treaties flowing from King John and the Magna Carta Act. The King may have walked into Canada and said, yoh listen up this is all mine do you hear me-but it wasn't that simple. That same King and many others in between having sex with their cousins and beheading people entered into numerous legal treaties with the native peoples recognizing natives as equals and that is precisely what it says in these treaties. This notion natives sat around and said, yoh King John, its yours take it, is ludicrous. In aboriginal legal systems and values no one person is said to own land. Humans don't own the planet -they are said to be guests on it. The planet is not a thing to own, it is a living organism or creature, humans share life with. So all the concepts don't define control of the planet by ownership, it defines the customs and rules by how you interact with the planet. Native principles are holistic and collective, they do not fragment or break down into individual rights because no one person owns land but on the contrary many must share it. So when you try work with these two sets of legal realities they can be quite different and what we have a tendency to do is assume the Western British one is the only one-but its not. That British system we inherited in its treaties never attempted to extinguish aboriginal customs and collective rights. It may be that subsequent non native politicians have chosen to do so and pass subsequent laws to try rationalize ignoring the treaties, but they have no legal effect on extinguishing the treaties. So most accurately put,w hen it comes to Haldimand, like many other land claims, you had the government encountering native peoples and trying to convince the native peoples to give up their collective right to access and use land. The native concept is not about owning it for one person, but sharing it for a people. Our governments come along and say, here take money we want to give it to one person or persons. The native peoples never ever agreed to that. The government even admitted it lied and broke agreements over it. It has tried everything to pressure aboriginals to give up their rights because its no different then say the old tale of Satan trying to get your soul-Satan can't get it unless you consent to allowing him to have it-unless he can get you to consent to that, he can't get it. So the tale is he has to trick you into getting your consent. The government in this case, Lord knows they have tried, but the aboriginals have remained resolute and consistent in not consenting. What we then have are subsequent governments trying to pass laws that ignore the old treaties hoping this will make them impractical to honour only that hasn't worked-all its done is create subsequent laws that try ignore treaties but can not legally. So the Crown can pretend all it wants it has a prerogative of ownership over Haldimand or anywhere else but that is still subject to the treaties that same crown agreed to obliging it to also recognize the collective rights of the native peoples to it.

Certainly the 6 Nations have been consistently clear in asserting their right to jurisdiction over the entire land in the Haldimand Tract. I do not know however given the track record of the federal government, whetehr its offer in regards to the 4 claims within the Tract constitute full recognition of 6 Nations Sovereignty. I will only believe it when I see the federal government state that in writing or see that clearly spelled out in a legal decision by a Judge. I say that because my problem is the federal government continues to deny what it agrees to saying it really only agreed to something else far smaller in scope that what it semed to be saying. For me as a lawyer when I negotiate with a party that constantly denies what it agrees to, I get a but skeptical. I do not think anyone who understands the history of the track record of the federal government in regards to how it negotiates could possibly trust it. I say that from a purely legal perspective not a political one. Sovereign states and their governments tend to hold themselves above the laws they expect others to follow. The whole process of our laws creates a special status for the Monarch no one else can have. It also exempts our governments from following many laws these governments said they would follow. The thing is when governments want to change their mind and break agreements, they simply create another law to say they can.

I believe your very last sentence is accurate. I do not think it has done anything legall other then create a process to attempt to balidate the 4 claims. I don't think it is wide enough to encompass the entire Tract issue although it might be a basis for a formula of settlement that could. How much precedent this has and how wide it can be legally applied is really an open question. That is the problem with law. It doesn't always provide the specific clear cut answers we ideally would want it just points you in the direction of more discussion to get to that eventual agreement.

To me Kimmy he can address the legal issuesrelated to the Kadr detention without the crass photo-ops. I am sure you would also agree the Kadr amd Arar cases while both bring up questions as to national security and detention laws are highly different in that one was a lawful Canadian while the other was enagged in an act of war/terror. I think the pith and substance of the Kadr case is that the line between conventional war and terror has been blurred and the law based on conventions for conventional wars, has yet to come up with a formula for defining the activities of civilians who engage in armed violence. Kadr was not in a legal army fighting by conventional rules of war. He was in fact acting as a person in an armed cell of civilians who did not have legal authority to represent their country. Some say he is not a terrorist because his actions were directed at soldiers not civilians. I am not sure in law if it would make sense to try define terror by simplying stating its NOT terror as long as the violent action is directed at soldiers. Therein lies the problem. Is he entitled to the same treatment as a conventional soldier or do you treat him as a civilian criminal or this third category no one has defined yet with a uniform definition in law but we all call terrorist. To answer JBG a bit, my concern with the American approach at Guantanamo Bay is that it created a category of treatment for terrorists that completely violates the US constitution. As a lawyer I just can not be comfortable with any legal procedure that does not allow a fair trial, a speedy trial, and does not honour fundamental rules of natural justice. Even in military tribunals that deal with conventional soldiers, there are basic principals of natural justice that are followed. I think this concept of indefinite detention by its very nature is a threat to fundamental democractic principles and fair and just applications of law. Don't get me wrong. I don't want terrorists on the loose nor do I think its practical to think if one is about to kill you, you can afford them certain democractic benefits -its just I am worried about when and how you limit those benefits, because when you limit those benefits they won't just be used against that terrorist but one day against good people for the wrong reasons. I do not think our soldiers are dying to support totalitarianism but just the opposite. It is precisely because of what they sacrifice for, I find it incumbent on people such as myself who enjoy the benefits of the democracy they safeguard to come up with ways to properly contain terror without destroying democracy and turning it into totalitarianism. I think in this case, the failure with Kadr is in the fact he was not tried sooner and in a court of law. In theory he should have been tried in an Aghhani court according to afghani laws and detained in an Afghani jail. I do not agree with the US exercise of creating a parallel world of rules beyond domestic Afghani law or international law or for that matter US domestic law or US military law. Heck at this point I would settle for any of those systems of law being followed. That said Dion is an idiot. As for Arar he has been justly compensated and hopefully we learned a valuable lesson as to what happens when there are arbitrary detentions without sufficient checks and balances to keep the state's powers in perspective-something the US constitution envisions but Mr. Bush has deliberately ignored. I do not like elected politicians who ignore the very constitution that defines who and what they are and can do. It reminds me of someone with a bad hair cut and a ridiculous mustache. (say that could be Hitler, Stalin, Hussein or Jack Layton-just kidding on the last one except for the hair and mustache)

with due respect Geofrey its not a race based privilege, it is a collective right. There's a huge difference. If it was a race based privilege, aboriginals would be seeking to enshrine or codify the right to discriminate against non natives. If you read their legal arguements, if you take the time to actually read what they ask for legally, you would see they simply ask that what has already been legall defined as their colllective rights in treaties be honoured by the signatory, i.e. the federal government. They are simply asking the government follow what it agreed to. There is no privilege if all you seek is something you are legally entitled to. You are confusing your subjective feeling that you feel aboriginals want something you can't have with the legal concept of privilege-these are two very different things. Again Geoffrey in specific situations because of the direct or indirect result of the federal or provincial governments breaching these treaties, it is precisely these breaches that haave then created situations where non natives have been given legal privileges illegally. Now when aboriginals say, the legal privileges are illegal, you define that as aboriginals seeking racial privileges. They are not. They are merely seeking redress for the breaches to their treaties that then lead to the illegal granting of legal priviliges to non natives. No you can't ignore the breached treaties legally and say, hey we will only consider the law from now on in, and nothing before that. No it would be legally absurd to selectively ignore past breaches. That in fact would be racist and seeking to enforce law based on racial agenda, i.e., that non native rights are the only ones in need of recognition. No in this case in a rational, logical, fair legal system we redress the damages and inequities that flow from the breaches. If an innocent third party through no fault of their own finds themselves faced with being in the wrong place at the wrong time caused by an illegal application of the law that gave them rights they never should have had but did not take intentionally-then we compensate such people as well. There is a way to restrore the imbalance of the breached treaties with individual predicaments faced by specific peoples who are not native. If you read what every aboriginal leader has said, they have stated over and over again they have been willing to compromise and find creative ways to reconcile the conflicts-the problem is each time they have, its been used by the federal government as a pretense to ignore them and not respond. That Sir, is a fact easily documented by the time lines of the negotiations as to the breached treaties and the number of federal negotiatiors that have come and gone refusing to commit to anything because whether the federal goverment was Tory or Liberal, it did not want to agree to anything let alone even negotiate. The federal government did ironically think it important to lecture aboriginal peoples on sexual equality concepts and amend the Indian Act over that, but when it has come to land rights or say compensation for damages from forced kidnappings of aboriginal children and placing them in Christian institutions far from their families-that it has had no problem dragging on and on. I say it again Geoffrey, no I do not want to cause anyone hardship native or non native. I personally want to find a way to reconcile any conflicts caused by treaty breaches. I have no desire to demonize or hurt anyone. I know you think what I think will hurt innocent people. My problem is I am not skillful enough to be able to explain in easy to understand legal terms that it is possible legally to recognize the aboriginal peoples' collective rights without hurting the people you think this would cause.

Actually no. The desire to be self-determined and the ability to be economically self-sufficient are not the same although in an ideal world it is hoped self-determination can lend to the conditions that can then lead to self-sufficiency. Many peoples are self-determined but far from self-sufficient. Legally to reconcile being a nation of nations (the aboriginal peoples and their nations) that co-exists with another nation of nations (the federal government and its provinces) you enshrine it in a constitution and in federal and provincial laws no different then how the federal and provincial governments divide certain powers in the Constitution Act which become the particular jurisdiction of one and not the other, while other areas of jurisdiction are allowed to over-lap and run parallel to one another. Another example of reconciliation in law is how healing circles are being used as an alternative to traditional criminal sentencing in the criminal system or the umbrella type approach to health regulation we now see in Ontario. Ontarios new new health regulation reconciles the need to treat 23 different approaches to health treatment (through 23 colleges each a nation to itself)as equals on some levels under the same regulatory framework but also allows them to remain autonomous, distinct and self-regulatory on another level. all must conform to certain regulatory rules, but then are allowed to operate diffferently in other areas and none is considered better then the others.