Okwaho

Are people with disabilities given special treatment as compared to people that are not disabled? Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans? Your equality argument is more and more becoming an illusion rather than a reality!

Canadian rule of law can find it’s foundations in British Common Law. That law is developed and put into force for its citizens. International law is based on agreements and treaties between two sovereign nations ie: Great Britain and France, Great Britain and the United States, Great Britain/Canada and Rotinonshonni and other First Nations etc. We are merely reminding the law that if they had enforced the rule of law honorably from the beginning there would be no need to witness the actions we must now resort to in order to obtain justice. Our relationship with foreign countries has always been rooted in the Two Row. It has always been the primary agreement us and we have consistently kept our word of honor. The Royal Proclamation Act and The Haldimand Proclamation state otherwise! They are in fact edicts of Royal law from the Crown to their subjects/citizens. People can construe their contents to abrogate and derogate as much as they wish but, their contents are unmistakably clear! The land must be ceded to the Crown by us not by legislation, assumption or any other means. My argument in fact is that we have attempted for years to resolve the matter without using force. We’ve never lost control over our lands the so called “rule of law” made it impossible without militant action on our behalf in order to enforce our control. We have always taken the position that we could resolve it peacefully in the hopes that conscience and honor would reproach the deceitful nature of the system. Today we know better and are found in the same circumstances. There are no Russian territories within the boundaries of North America. Russia does not have claim by way of treaty or other agreements with the Crown which does put them in a rather deferent matter. If there did then I’m sure Canadian courts would have no problem with applying the rule of law were it works in their favor to deal with the matter as they have done so with us for so long. If the North was threatened by Russian squatters I’m sure the indigenous peoples of the region would waste no time in responding to the situation. If you research the history pertaining to the tract you’ll find that the issue has been contested and petitioned against for well over a hundred years. You’ll find that we have been constantly denied appropriate legal remedy. It would seem that the rule of law can be enforced “but only when and where it works in your favour.” You also mentioned that: “Under international law, in order to maintian sovereignty you must exercise a consistent measure of possession and control over the territory over which you claim said sovereignty. By your own statement you put up an argument that the Six Nations have lost the sovereignty over the Haldimand tract due to the failure to maintain it pursuant to international law.” If anyone is under the impression that we lost anything it would have to be contributed through the course of the many years of injustice due to unilateral legislation and absolutely no legal recourse within the very system itself. Conflict of interest is what it amounts to. In the past we have always upheld the peace and good will between us in spite of the recurrent injustice. There are those that say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” If two wrongs don’t make a right than the guilty party shall always remain free to exercise injustice until someone holds them accountable. Isn’t that what your law is based on? Now I ask you, who holds the guilty party accountable when the guilty party is the law itself? As I have previously mentioned; “If you research the history pertaining to the tract you’ll find that the issue has been contested for over well over a hundred years. You’ll find that we have been constantly denied appropriate legal remedy. It would seem that the rule of law can be enforced “but only when and where it works in your favour.” You’ve mentioned that you’re familiar with the Delgamuukw case. Didn’t the Supreme Court of Canada rule that they have no access to Canadian courts to apply for injunctive relief? As I have already mentioned the issue has been contested for over well over a hundred years and we have been constantly denied appropriate legal remedy. Keep researching, you’ll also find that at one time we were not allowed to have lawyers’ plea our case in court. Again in Delgamuukw didn’t the Supreme Court of Canada rule that they have no access to Canadian courts to apply for injunctive relief? My reply to you in regards to this question has been answered throughout my entire response. If as you say “you are actually of the view that the Six Nations claim is likely”, then I am sure that you know what I have stated is true. The occupation of the land itself poses no threat whatsoever to the good people of Caledonia. We do not leave the site to go into Caledonia to wreak havoc on its citizens. Much of the trouble ensues when some of the residents "fearing for their safety" gather near the site purely for the purpose of inciting hostility. Of course it’s always the natives that initiate everything. In short the answer to your recurring question is that which you already know, we cannot obtain any proper legal remedy in a domestic court while judges deliberate amidst of a conflict of interest.

You are mincing words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel Yuo're missing the point again as usual, they are a nation within a nation as of May, 14, 1948!!!

Well, actually........ Here's the full paper: The Six Nations: A Neglected Aspect of Canadian Legal History I can stand in my neighbour's yard and declare it my sovereign territory...doesn't make it so... FTA The Palestine Jews proclaimed the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 which made Israel became a nation within the territorial boundries (nation) of Palestine!

There aren't any!

In 1920, scrolls were found in Egypt in Nag Hammadi. The scrolls date back to 150 AD. In those scrolls are the Gospel of Thomas that consists of the the sayings Jesus. These scrolls pre-date the Gospels that are the present bible. I'm not asking to hear about some obscure scrolls or secrets of the Da Vinci Code etc. Just the Books, Chapters and Verses that have aledgedly been altered over the years and years of retelling.

Tsi, don't give too much away. I'm waiting for our geniuses to discover the history backwards from here.

What is the difference between the stereotype you posted above and a stereotype that says all Natives are lazy drunks? Both stereotypes are wrong and encourage people to view others based on their race and not their worth as indiviuduals.Let me put it simply: any statement that goes something like "natives are ..." or "white people are.." is a racist statement even if that statement is intended to be positive. If you want to live in a society without racism you have to learn to stop using racism whenever it is convenient for you. And yes, I am picking on you everytime you make a racist statement on this forum because I am tired of racists like you running around and pretending that you are not racist. I don't really care if you are willing to listen to me or not because I know that others will read your insulting replies and will recogonize that I have a point - even if you insist on living in denial. A few of you are making the same "natives are ..." or "white people are.." statements. Explain to me how you are not racists.

Oh really? Name me the Books, Chapters and Verses that have aledgedly been altered over the years and years of retelling.

Back bench MPs say many things in parliment that have no connection with reality. If all you have to back up your claim is statements made by a few MPs then you don't really have anything. You have proven my conclusion that there really is no such thing as "equality" in your society! I guess those MPs were just racists.

In 1914 and in 1951, the 'holding' of Six Nations would have been recognized as the current lands of the Six Nations reservation. I fail to see how these statements, made during a debate in the House of Commons, have anything to do with the land claims of additional territory that was apparently surrendered to the Crown in the 1840's... No matter how much you wish to twist words and english definitions around you can't! Not only do these MPs from opposing political parties affirm our sovereignty (which according to someone was lost under the Haldimand and Royal Proclamations) they also mention the special treaty by which we were given lands. Both of these men speak of a "different legal position" infering that parliament is about to or hasbroken the law! Go back and read SickandTired! were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it. They're refering to the lands under the special treaty period! So yes it does have to do with not only the entire tract of land but all things Six Nations. I know S&T, you fail to see how anything has to do with anything when faced with facts that contradict interpretation.

I don't think so! You really need to some research. We had the same as the loyalists that came here with us! Everything we had was burned to the ground by Maj. Gen. Sullivan during his "search and destroy" mission into Six Nations country! We are talking 1784 correct?

The interesting thing I find is that the government of Ontario and Canada has already stated it's position in 1995 on the Plank Road Lands (of which Douglas Creek is part of) in their answer to the claims made by Six Nations...This is the section from that statement that deals with the Plank Road lands... STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROAD LANDS 111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender. 112. In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for a sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under the Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844. So the government's position in 1995 was that all the talk of leases of the Plank Road lands that happened in the 1830's ended up being meaningless. The leases were never set up and ultimately, the Plank Road lands were not included in Six Nation's selection of their current reserve lands and the Plank Road lands were surrendered and then sold along with the rest of the remaining SN lands in the original grant. Now this was the Statement of Defence - an early statement of position before the court actions get going (which were stopped when an out of court process was agreed to by the government and SN) so it is not settled or proven as fact - but it was the government's position then. I wonder how that position has changed (if it has)? Just today, Chief MacNaugton (lead SN negotiator) was on 900CHML stating that Douglas Creek Estates was not an occupation, it was a reclamation. He described it this way; since the government had not made the lease payments, they were reclaiming the land just like any lease holder would. But it is the government's position that the land was never leased in 1995. Have they changed their position from 1995? Also, the surrender was not something that just happened on a Friday afternoon over a couple of drinks. The dates show that it took 4 years to get the surrender deal finalized. The moving of Six Nations people onto the selected Reserve lands must have meant that they understood the deal or why agree to move onto the current Reserve lands?? So what is taking months and months to negotiate? Tsi wants us to believe that the government has already capitulated and agreed that the entire Grand River tract claim has been agreed to by the government - but MacNaughton's comments today make that claim suspect. Obviously from the 1995 Statement of Defence, the government must have documentation detailing it's position (there are supposedly 70,000 pieces of documentation related to the specific claims Six Nations have made). This standoff has been going on now for almost 6 months, with many supposed negotiating sessions, yet none of either sides position has been detailed further. Other than the rhetoric that is widely broadcast that "the land is ours" or "the surrender was not valid" or "the land was leased and payments have not been made". But all without any supporting documentation or even reasons why these positions are taken. I would also like to see and hear what the reasons are that surrenders are not valid and also whether the government has changed is position from their 1995 Statement of Defence. I guess everyone will continue to have to wait and see... Your finally starting to learn something! Of course the government is going to find favor in themselves. House of Commons Debates Third Session-Twenty-Twelfth Parliament, 4-5George V., 1914 Hon. Frank Oliver (Liberal MP): But there are bands of the Six Nations Indians located on the Grand river in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any other Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand river had their original home in the United States. At the close of the war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it. House of Commons Debates Fourth Session-Twenty-First Parliament, 15George VI, 1951 John Horne Blackmore (Conservative MP for Lethbridge) repeated Mr. Oliver's statement in the House of Commons. I don't have a link so doubters will have to look them up at your local library.

Stop using exclamation points with me. I still think that an injunction would have brought the same results of negotiation. That's the problem...to many people think before they have or know the facts. Stop using exclamation points with me. ? Isn't that a denial of freedom of expression? I thought everyone was equal! lol

I realize that you have a twisted sense of morality, however, most people understand that righting historical wrongs must never create a new set of victims. Make demands that require the victimization of 500,000+ people and you will find that most people will give you very little sympathy. Just what I expected from you. You shout morality from the soap box of the internet claiming victimisation due to righting the immoral wrongs of the past! Who's twisted sense of morality? It's comical how everything is twisted to you until it's proven! Round, round we go!

Someone already has been killed by the more radical elements of your society!

I think if you read the links more closely, you will find that there was a comittment to do no harm to one another and to work together. There was also a committment to fight back the more radical claims of the Oneida Wisconsin. I'm sure if you read the agreements between out two nations you'll find we are called your "friends and allies"! Who stopped being friends and allies with who?

The U.S. Supreme court isn't in denial and playing games. They know their forefathers made agreements with our people and are of the just and moral frame of mind that it's time to right the wrongs.

Thats my favourite part But the reality is the fact that they said because the possibility exists.

You're evading the points! Land title and sovereignty! Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the facts!

Wake up. They do apply to the Six Nations by virtue of those very documents. Sadly, with you and your ilk, whats probably needed is a harsh day of reckoning. Then, long after the smoke clears, your descendants (who will be prospering as Canadian citizens having not been subjected to your indoctrination of fake sovereignty) will be left scratching their heads wondering why those radicals from the Six Nations made such poor choices. Cunning linguists, native sovereignty doubters and native culture experts alike. Read these. http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/02/feb16_1_02.htm http://www.oneida-nation.net/lcletter.html

What? Nice try!!! Read these and see whether Six Nations sovereignty exists or not also! http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/02/feb16_1_02.htm http://www.oneida-nation.net/lcletter.html

My racism????? Ha that's a laugh. I'm saying everyone should be equal. You are the ones saying that a certain group deserves something because their race entitles them to it. Here's "equality" in Canada! 1) If you are not one of the majority your voice will never be heard! 2) If you are one of the majority your voice still might not ever be heard! 3) If you own a big business you can have the loudest voice of all! 4) If I you are not at least an upper-middle class citizen your chances of becoming an MP much less Prime Minister are slim to none! 5) If you are a middle or lower class citizen you must carry the burden of taxes while the upper-middle and upper classes that can afford it get all the tax breaks! 6) The wealthier you are the more justice will be on your side! 7) Equality means that you can only have equal opportunity because as you can see from the items above you will never be equal! 8) Finally...if you live in Alberta you can share in the profits from their oil but if you live elsewhere in Canada...well I'm sure you know! Doesn't look to be very "equal" to me.

Not on a sovereign nation on their own territory he has no jurisdiction!

I am one of the them. Under internaltion law one nation cannot inforce their law on another nation within their own territory. We haven't had any presence on the land for the whole duration that the land matter was under the government's land process. While we were of the understanding that the land was in the process of being dealt with it is sold to a developer. We occupied the land in order to prevent its further development. It is the exact same stunt they pulled in Kahnasatake (Oka) in 1990. You are demanding that we trust the government and their law on that basis. We are not in contempt of their court of law they are and history has proven that repetedly. That is the reason we will remain there until it is resolved.