Jerry J. Fortin

In my view the land claims are little more than a way to play against our good nature and our sympathy. The legal value of the claims does not constitute a moral value to equate with, and from that stand point the entire argument falls apart in my opinion. I see the entire issue from a perspective of a failing system of society that is striving to appease all petitioners. The law or at least the intent of the law is now subject to the definition of fair and impartial treatment. I contest this current trend or at least oppose it on the basis that the law ought to be formulated to apply justice not to appease popular opinions of the public. The law is the foundation of our society and as such needs to be considered as the means of navigating through the problems of society in a manner that is extremely biased toward the dispensation of justice. From my now defined standpoint, I see the entire argument as a dispute about a he said she said form of argument. What is really being sought out in this issue is the wholesale change of our entire society based upon the claims made by one group of individuals against not merely the government but instead all of the other members of the society of this nation. The law in this case is being tested to provide the "right" of one small group of citizens against the "rights" of an entire nation. This brings into question the relevant weight of "rights" in the legal/moral issue at hand. It is a legal trap that is being exploited by a small group of individuals, and it could well win the day in the court system. In order for our society to prevail and flourish we need to accept the reality that evolution applies to society as well as nature. Human civilization is in a constant state of change and as such we discover and apply those changes to our society. However, we do not always utilize all of the ideas or concepts that we develop. Our society has become technologically advanced but it has not advanced to the same degree in terms of a moral or social sense. We are still subject to the artificially created political agendas formulated by those of ambition and wealth that seek to control and manipulate society to their advantage. Those agendas can be carefully designed to play well in terms of popular support, as is the case with all matters having to do with our native population. It is my hope that there will be no solution to the native issues prior to a reformation of political operations within this nation. I have no trust in most politicians and their hidden agendas. I have no trust in laws that are created by them because of those agendas. In my mind we need to clean up our political act first; update our entire constitution, reform the entire governmental structure, design a means to empower citizens through a freedom to participate in the political process, and finally develop the means to improve the human condition through freedom defined within the law. As it stands now our freedom is narrowly defined as a position of rights determined by government that was not ratified by the individual citizens, that is simply wrong. We based the entire constitution of the say so of representatives loyal to partisan affiliation instead of loyalty to those they are supposed to be representing and in my mind that is a fatal flaw. Now how does all this apply to the issue at hand you ask? I think that the real issue here is far more important than that of simply native "rights". The entire definition of the term of rights is now suspect and in dire need of modification by means of modernization. I believe that we need to do this before we resolve native issues because I want to avoid the politicians from making any more "deals" with the natives that could be used against the rest of the citizens at some time in the future. I think that having waited this long, the natives can wait a little longer as long as they KNOW FOR A FACT that the issue is finally being dealt with. So in the end, I think we in fact owe a debt to the natives in as much as they may be the means of reforming our society in a manner that is beneficial to all citizens. For all the wrongs done to them in the past, they indeed have a very real desire to see changes in this society. Those changes needed are those which would protect citizens from each other and protect citizens from government. In that sense the goals of natives are in fact the same as those of non natives. Its time for a change.

The simple fact is that the mouth pieces speaking on this forum in favour of the native position have misrepresented the entire case. They come across as racist little brats drunk on the greed of their own delusions. To argue that one group should have any more rights than another in this country is a fools errand. The citizens of this country are a hell of a lot smarter then some on this board would seem to think. Even the elected representatives of this nation have more intelligence than some folks on this board would give them credit for. No representative will ever give away the farm, if for no other reason we can afford to bribe them more than the natives can. In addition no judicial panel or appointed arbitrator will ever rule in favour of displacing citizens ever again in this country. The politicians won't sign the deal and the courts will not take away the lands. Only a fool would ever believe otherwise. What myself and many other citizens would like to see is an equitable solution, but that won't happen either because of people like some on this board who would serve to cause public unrest through their political positions.

The entire problem here is human rights isn't it? The natives have been granted "special rights" not available to other citizens and that is what most other citizens view as an undefined problem even if the natives do not see it that way. It is not reserves or social conditions it is simply special rights. We need to stop throwing money at the problem. Natives need to govern themselves in order to find their own way. Stop the funding and grant them full autonomy within their existing lands, that is my proposal. Let them govern themselves, its that simple. They have no use for our laws and our ways so why should we contest their judgment on the matter. They are not children who need their hands to be held, they have decided to make their own way in this world, that is their right in my opinion. With all due respect folks, I think the land claims are a joke, however I think they should be resolved by a neutral third party. Let the third party decide the issue. In the worst case scenario, the natives would be forced to compensate any displaced persons with fair market value for lost property. Where they would get the money to do that is beyond my concern, but there it is. I no longer desire to entertain the childish debate about the natives. I think it is time that we simply let them slit their own throats with their demands. They have no idea how good they have had it nor will they ever realize that until they are on their own. Let them pay their own way like everybody else and have done with the entire matter.

Nice touch, that is a valid point. That would likely get a rise out of the debate team.

Interesting argument, fatally flawed however. The confused approach you undertake chases another red herring as usual. Equity vs equality is that which you propose to make a stand on, and no sane citizen will accept this argument. That approach is as wrong as affirmative action and does little to achieve any form an enlightened society. The entire concept of claiming poor me because of ignorance certainly can't apply when you engage the services of a professional to take the matter before the courts. Should an individual citizen attempt to do so, then that argument would hold water. Further to this entire point, society is has no desire to punish the children for the sins of the fathers. What has been done has been done and nothing will change that my friend. The justice you seek is not justice at all but merely revenge for your loses. You seek to cripple an entire society as an act of equity as compensation for what was done to natives more than than generations ago. Any real compensation was due to those individuals now dead and not their ancestors. History seldom recognizes the debts of ancestors as valid upon decedents. Feel free to keep flogging that dead horse though, that is your right. I must ask where you get the notion that justice is equity under the law, not equality. According to the law of this land; Schedule B Constitution Act, 1982 (79) Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 PART I Canadian charter of rights and freedoms Equality Rights Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. According to the law, you are simply wrong CR.

There is no doubt in my mind that justice will prevail. When that day comes CR you will find yourself equal to all citizens and they will be equal to you. No more and no less. In terms of land claims, the resolution to those outstanding issues will not be solved in your lifetime. They will not be resolved until citizens like you come to the conclusion that they have no more tights than any others. They will not be resolved until racism is defeated.

CR you are a fool, there is simply no doubt in my mind. If we were to take a poll of members here I am sure that a majority would peg you as a racist troll.

Lets look at this entire situation from a standpoint that is a little different. Lets use the native position that it is the community that must make decisions. Lets put the matter to a vote. Lets simply use democracy to solve this problem and let the reality sink in. CR it simply doesn't matter what words you choose to use, they will always announce your racism. You can't change history, Brandt sold you out and that is tough. Yet it changes nothing. The harsh truth is that there are now several generations of folks that have lived and died on those lands, and those folks have rights as well. They will not be displaced. Even if the crown made mistakes it is not the fault of those who now live there and they cannot be held accountable for the mistakes of the government. That is a legal fact. CR you really need to grow up and stop your childish rants. You are a fool to believe that anybody owes you anything. In this nation as it is in this world you must work for what you want. There are no free rides and you simply will never get what you want because you are to lazy or foolish to understand why.

Think again you dingbat. If it was that simple it would have been resolved years ago now wouldn't it. Contest this little quote please. "On February 5, 1798, Captain Joseph Brant, the agent or attorney of the Six Nations, sold large tracts of land as follows: Block 1 Dumfries Township, 94,305 acres, sold to P. Steadman for £8,841. This tract passed into the ownership of William Dickson who paid the price and opened the land for settlement. Block 2 Woolrich and Pilkington Townships, sold to Richard Beasley, James Wilson and John Rousseau, 94,012 acres for £8,887. Block 3 Waterloo Township, sold to William Wallace, 86,078 acres for £16,364. Block 4 Nichol Township, sold to the Hon. Thomas Clark for £3,564 payable in 1,000 years from the date of the bond, the interest to be paid annually. Block 5 Moulton Township, sold to W. Jarvis for £5,775, then sold to Lord Selkirk, who in turn sold it to Henry J. Boulton. Block 6 Canboro Township, given to John Dockstader, sold for the benefit of his Native children to Benjamin Canby. The Six Nations subsequently sold additional parts of their land to new settlers.." Your contention that he was not an agent and that the crown knew it is simply false. Add that to the reality that your natives didn't contest the authority until at least several years after the fact. Seven years is a long time in terms of contracts to be contested don't you think?

So you admit that Brandt sold you out, how nice. That infers that he had the power to do so doesn't it? Face the reality here CR, you screwed yourselves over and now choose to blame others. The white race can say that Vikings were in North America a thousand years ago. They lived, hunted and fished and died here. So what of any claim they wish to make? The Jews threw out their opposition in Israel some thousands of years ago but now lay claim to their land in spite of the Palestine position. The international community recognizes Israel. Nearly every European country has been run over a dozen times and borders have changed time and again with countries appearing and disappearing all the time. The truth is simply possession is the prime concern. That and the ability to defend your own turf. Title is not the issue. The natives lost a series of wars and negotiations and lost the lands as well. Get over it. While I would truely like to see a resolution for natives in Canada, I will certainly not give away the farm. That is not reasonable, as is your unreasonable position. To take your position on the opposite side of the fence you would see citizens of Canada lose all they have without a battle in some bleeding heart court concerning itself with politics instead of rights. To return to the question of rights, you should have no more right or privilege than any other citizen of this nation to advocate otherwise merely proves your racist tendencies. You would have to be a fool to entrench yourself in that position.

The British Empire ruled more than a hundred million people in India with only a few thousands of troops. Firepower was and is relevant. There was no need to eliminate the population, that would be wasteful and counter productive to the entire purpose of the empire at the time. In fact it was very similiar to what America is now doing around the world, bringing peace by means of the sword. Bringing prosperity by means of government. Not new concepts at all. The case of Hong Kong is unique, yet very insightful. The entire nation of China was to a very real extent controlled through that single port because sea lanes were everything at the time. New York was wealthy, but more so than Great Britian ? I will need something to back that up JBG.

So according to you Brandt was not a representative of the Six Nations at all. He had no authority whatsoever. If that is so, how is it that his position was challenged at all? Where are those letters the council sent, where can they be read? I will say it again, the quit claims are a red herring. Even you should be able to figure out what really happened there. You were sold out be Brandt. The way the law at the time was written the lands could only be transfered to the crown, not other citizens. With that in mind a way was found to circumvent the law. Lets not be shy about this. The Six Nations were not originally from the area were they? They were Americans, weren't they? So now where is the so called traditional title? Wasn't this merely another red herring?

I would not be surprised to find that the new world order is in fact a reality based upon a recreated class structure of global nature. I think that if one looked deep enough that the signs were already visible and as plain as day. The wealthy always have ruled our societies, I don't see this as something new at all.

It does indeed. DM comes across as a racist left wing loon. I wonder if he realizes that his kind is rejected by a massive majority in this nation. Then again perhaps he is one of those we are not citizens of Canada types. They claim all the protections of our laws and demand all the benefits of citizenship, yet refuse to contribute to the society that they demand so much of.

I wonder how Canadians would feel if we were invaded by another nation and told what was best for us? I wonder how many citizens would stand up for this nation? What if the United States decided that we should become a vassal state of America and have all of what we knew before they came determined by them to be false and against our best interests? Leave the Afganies to determine their own fate in political terms. I agree that we could and should help them to achieve their goals, but only because we helped to destroy their country and are now responsible for trying to make things right. Canada should stay away from matters of international intrigue, at least until such time as we find a set of representatives and leaders that have sufficient discernment to avoid causing harm to the citizens of another country at the expense of the lives of citizens in this country. It is that kind of lose / lose scenario that we need to avoid. The cost / benefit formula was never applied to this scenario we now find ourselves in. It was a knee jerk reaction that we undertook.

Those numbers are nice to read, but they simply don't address the national debt issue. The government is in deficit financing mode and the debt is stacking up rather dramatically. Much government spending goes directly to the military industrial complex which is wholly financed through the tax dollars paid into the government revenue stream. This particular sector employees huge numbers of Americans both directly and indirectly. If you deduct the amount of economic activity within this sector and deduct the tax revenues received by the government from that sector from the current set of figures, the picture changes in dramatic fashion. When you start to look into this you will be amazed by what you find. America is forced to remain on a war footing in order to keep their economy going because any changes in the military industrial complex will have severe impact on the economy. So get used to it folks America is at war, and they must remain at war in order for the nation to survive as a viable economic entity. Recession or not, depression or not, the government will continue to pile up debt that will in the end determine the national political direction chosen by its leadership. Recession is not an issue to be downplayed, but it is not the issue of greatest importance in the United States at the present time either.

My greatest fear as a westerner is that Trudeau will become once a again a household name. Don't laugh folks, I think it could very well happen. Another western fear is that Ontario finds someone like a Ralph Klein in their neck of the woods. Your problem back east is the Ontario / Quebec dominance of the political landscape. That little problem of yours has driven many westerners to the brink of giving separation serious thought. To that end an eastern Ralph or another Trudeau could work in our favour You folks in the "economic heartland" need to understand that Canada is a confederation of Provinces that are all supposed to be equal to each other. In fact all provinces are to be equal partners in confederation according to the constitution yet nothing could be further from the truth, and that is the root of the problem. You can't see it from your lofty positions in the political heiracy of this nation but from the depths of the pond scum we not just see it but live it everyday.

Fact; 1) He was a designated representative of the Six Nations. 2) He was legally empowered to make legal decisions to dispose of lands deemed under his control. 3) His position as a native representative to the crown was not contested until years after the fact. 4) The Six Nations never sought the assistance of the crown to repudiate Brants' actions. 5) The entire quit claim issue is a red herring.

The British Empire had no effect on either Africa or Asia? You have got to be joking! They did not replace their populations, that is true they dominated them. However in terms of colonies, the British did in fact replace the inhabitants to the degree possible where ever they went by driving out the inhabitants and claiming the land as vacant. The Empire sought small bit of the best locations in their opinion, locations where there was real strategic value to them and in their specific case it was usually deep protected harbours to begin with. So in fact we agree that resistance was in fact futile, and the technology also overwhelmed them. The disease was a major factor yes, arguably the determining factor in the way you suggest. Then again, resistance tin that manner was futile as well. Initially the colonies of North America were seeded with rugged yet viable types of settlers. Many colonies failed, and the groups of folks wishing to tempt fate depleted. At that point individuals of lesser value to the colony owners were used. In fact there was little interest in moving to the boondocks for the upper classes. However the poor had nothing to lose and everything to gain. More importantly it cost less to transport prisoners into imposed exile than to take care of them at home at public or crown expense, so it was a natural that they would be shipped out. With all due respect, I seriously doubt that the cream of the crop were responsible for the successful settlement of North America. In terms of the rest of the world, the majority of colonization occurred after the industrialization period and consequently represent a source of natural resources for the use of factories and consumption of food for the citizens. There was a reason for the whole colonization period. Nations were into land grabbing in those days. Empires rose and fell with the British ending up as the dominant player. The British do not have clean hands, neither do the French and all involved including Russia played a part in the creation of the world as we know it now.

My research indicated that one Joseph Brant, the certified representative of the Six Nations took possession of the Haldimand tract of land and then subsequently sold off pieces at his leisure. He later died in a nice house in Burlington Bay. That argument doesn't hold water CR, he was the one named in the paperwork and disposed of the land as he saw fit as was his right.

What is it that you do for a living? What makes you think that you earn your keep? What is an honest days work to you?

Not once in the Charter are natives mentioned, only citizens of Canada. With that in mind you need to extend the logic. Since natives of the "First Nations" lay claim to independence from the Government of Canada and also claim to be independent citizens of their own "free" native nations, how can you seize a provision under a charter of which you deny citizenship? While it can be argued that citizens of Canada are protected in this nation by the charter, when you deny citizenship how is it that you have any entitlement to the terms and conditions of citizenship under the recognized law of the land. Either you are citizens of Canada and entitled to the benefits of that citizenship or you are not. So which is it? Lets go way back to 1763 with a Royal Proclamation that was the root of the problem we are now faced with. The problem is that according to the law of this land this Royal Proclamation determined that the crown would be the only authority with the power to negotiate the transfer of native lands to colonial settlers. There was good reason for this, the natives were being screwed over. From that time forward the government of Canada has several times confirmed this proclamation and its intent. Then as it is today, native rights could only be surrendered by treaty negotiations. The thing of it is, the natives entered into negotiations and gave away the farm. They were bought off or ripped off or call it what you want, but the fact remains that they agreed to the changes. They sought and received compensation for those changes. Those were and are done deals according to the law of the land. That is not to say that there are no outstanding claims, or for that matter any new claims which have not been filed. However the claims that have been settled are just that. There will be no change to these existing settlements, there is no "trust fund" there is no debt to contend with. Lets get real here shall we, if you are citizens then the government has an obligation to deal with you under the charter, if you are not then the government has no authority or responsibility either over or for you. That is the law. Argue it till the cows come home if you want but it will not change the facts. The treaties already signed represent a full and complete settlement as agreed to by the representatives that the natives sent to deal with the government. The government did not appoint those people, the natives did. Their agreement with the government constitutes a contract whether you like it or not. If the truth be known, it is the natives that wish to renege on some of these contract isn't it?

Well, I must agree that smallpox had a great deal to do with the drastic fall in population. However I was not speaking directly to that point when I said that the superior culture of Europeans displaced the native culture. Stone knives and bear skins are simply not effective against muskets and cannon. At that point in time when violence broke out the technological advantage of the Europeans precluded any real hope for victory by the natives. At least in terms of armed resistance anyhow. The native culture was totally destroyed, which is of course the European pattern. This did not change for many years. Contrary to popular belief, the colonies were a way to get rid of the scum of the earth and undesirable elements. To a large degree those poor folks made up a significant portion of immigrants to North America. They were not the only ones to move here mind you, there were many others that choose to move here and settle into the New World. On the other hand the natives were extremely advanced in social terms in spite of their lack of technological advancement. That is amazing in as much as their environment dictated the requirement for adaptability which as far as our culture at the time dictated was the limiting factor in our own development. The natives were far more attuned to nature than the Europeans. I suspect that the tribal nature of their cultural heritage was actually responsible for the lack of technological advancement as well as the reason for the advanced state of social development. Harsh conditions create the need for mutual assistance within the group in order to preserve the group, nothing new there. That little fact also caries over to society in general when considered in political terms, oppressed peoples become politically united in efforts of common cause. Sadly much of the native culture that was lost could be said to have superior social theories than our own culture. The morals and ethics of that culture were designed around a far smaller political union than our own and I believe they were based on solid fundamental concepts that are still valid to this day. Unfortunately these things are likely to never see the light of day again, and that in itself is a tragic loss.

I'm the prima donna in this thread? You are either a fool or brain dead if you really believe that. Lets take this back to the root of the problem. The superior cultural advantage of the European settlers dominated the North American continent and successfully displaced the more primitive native cultures. South of the border our American friends attempted genocide as a solution to the problem, north of the border we choose negotiation over violence. Now you don't see a lot of southern natives making the same kind of noise down there as you do up here. In fact the government spends far less on them down there as we do up here. So it is fair to say that because of our less violent attitude at the time of those settlers that we are now facing the violence and ignorance of the northern natives now. This nation is being blamed for its treatment of natives, in the past. For myself, and many others we have no desire to interfere in the lives of natives, yet the natives cannot say the same thing. For myself, and many others we have no desire to be treated as anything less than equal to all other citizens, yet the natives cannot say the same thing. Until those attitudes change, I and many other will oppose any negotiated settlement that will deliver advantageous benefit to the natives. The reality is such that if the Jews could not get their land back, their property, their money, after the second world war then the natives will not either. The natives will get what is given to them only when and as it pleases the government. Lets cut the bull crap here and be real. The natives have special rights, and that does not sit well with many Canadians. If the natives want to get anywhere with the support of Canadians they need to seek an equal position to the rest of us, no more and no less. If the natives take that attitude they will immediately prevail. Somehow I don't think that this is very likely simply because of the childish positions they have already taken. I don't see them backing down on anything, therefore they will look forward to negotiating with their children's children. Such a waste. We can and will win, because to do otherwise is to kill the entire nation and no government will willingly accept that. No government will forego its sovereignty and that is the cold hard reality that you need to understand. There is no such thing as total victory, there will be compromise or there will be no settlement. CR your version of reality is not based on the facts but instead your misguided ideals. Those ideals are your own and not applicable to the rest of us. Don't confuse your vision and opinions with the reality of this nation.

I must weigh in here. Canada as a nation; well it was the first nation not born in the blood of its own citizens, but the list of Canadian "firsts" is indeed long. * The first Thanksgiving was celebrated in Canada. In 1576 Martin Frobrisher and his English sailors gethered on a small island in what would later be the Canadian Arctic. They offered prayers and gave thanks for a hectic but safe voyage across the Atlantic. This was followed by a meal of salt beef, buscuits and peas. The very first Thanksgiving! * The world's first wireless message was received by G. Marconi in 1910 in St. John's (NF). * Canada is the first country in the world to propose an international treaty to ban the use of land mines, a cause later taken up by Princes Diana. * With the launching of ANIK A1 in 1972, Canada became the first country in the world to have a commercial geostationary communications satellite network. * The world's first park north of the Arctic Circle is Auyuittuq (NT). It is also Canada's newest park. * The world's first steam-driven Westminster clock is located in 'Gastown", a downtown Vancouver (BC) tourist shopping area. * Canada has the world's first fully-simulated Mars base. Located in northern Canada, the station was built to study equipment and strategies that would be used during a mission to the Red Planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashline_Mar...esearch_Station * A Canadian was the first man in the world to create an artificial heart. * A Canadian was the first in the world to discover light-activated drugs. * Canada trained the worlds first female jet-fighter pilots. * Canada was the first to celebrate Labour Day.