Okwaho

Remember that you're speaking to just one person and that being angry at them isn't likely to convince them of anything. People are looking for workable solutions to problems. I'd be interested in hearing them. I realize that. I was responding to his post to me!

Respect is a two way street - if you want it then you have to show some. Look at the posts on this board where some aboriginal posters brag about how they own everything and anyone who questions that claim is labelled a racist. Or other posters that insist that evicting a 1/2 million people from their homes is no big deal because they are just 'settlers' with no rights. Such statements are absurd and go against all legal precedent and yet they are considered the gospel truth among some parts of the native community now.If you have read my posts you will see that I take an unbending principled stand on these issues, but I have also expressed a willingness to accept compromises that don't give me the 100% equal rights for everyone outcome that I would like to see. I think the wording of the of the Delgamuukw judgement states my feelings exactly: If that is not a statement of respect then I don't know what is. First of all, I'm not demanding respect. I said humility and gratitude for the fact that my ancestors made and kept you a Canadian x3. Secondly, if I were to be invited to your house, am I your equal while I'm there? After I've been there a few years can I just have it and you can go live in the tool shed? Lastly, We have given, and given and given. How much more do you really need to take? I hope you're as astute with Canadian-Native history as you are law! We've been evicted from our homes for hundreds of years but, that's O.K. it's all in the name of progress I guess. Like you said; it's a two way street! Time for Canada to ante up!

If you want to live in Canada, off Canadian dollars, then start acting like Canadians and I know that all Canadians of non-Indian descent don't get free land. Why should you? Why do you feel racially superior? What? Europeans came here to live off of us and we helped them to survive here. We didn't force them to be like us, we shared our food, knowledge and natural resources with them out of sheer kindness. We assisted them with their wars. If you're glad to be a Canadian you have us to thank for that! It has nothing to do with racial superiority, it's called the same friendship and gratitude in return. Your statement is like me saying to you; if you don't like the fact that we wish to retain what belongs to us, then get on a plane, boat or what ever and go back to Europe where you came from!

The education system should also focus on the fact that Canada wouldn't exist if it wasn't for our people. Maybe it would give them a better understanding of who we are and how the country came to be!

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

There is absolutely nothing about race in my statement. Native activists keep talking about their 'inheritance' and how that that taken away from them by the rampaging mobs of settlers. Louis XIV and other European nobility had title to a lot of land and had many rights and privileges that normal citizens could not have. They were often given these things for services that their ancestors provided to the crown. However, they lost everything in an illegal coup. The nobility in England did not have to go through the same brutal cleansing but they eventually had all of their inheritances stripped away by a majority who decided that inherited privileges are not compatible with the principal of egalitarian democracy.Aboriginal groups want to create an aboriginal aristocracy in this country - they freely admit it their postings on this board. They say they are entitled to do this because it is their 'inheritance'. They also claim that they are inherently better at taking care of the land than non-aboriginals. This is exactly the same argument the European nobility used to protect their rights when faced with a population that was no longer interested in having a society where selected minority enjoyed special status because of their birth. I will concede that I got caught up with using the term race-based rights because it is a concept that everyone understands due to the recent experience of south africa. However, I think a comparison to European nobility is quite reasonable and, as I said, race does not even enter to the equation. Most importantly, the inherited privileges of the nobility in Europe were still wrong even if race was not a factor. For same reason, inherited privileges for the wanna be aboriginal aristocracy are wrong as well. If you're not racist then you should at least express a little humility and show some gratitude instead of attitude towards the people that made you the proud Canadian you are today, and fought again to keep it that way!

The BC case is not as black and white as he claims. Delgamuukw is judgement that covers this issue. Under Delgamuukw bands must prove that they occupied the land to the exclusion of others before 1846, the year Britain declared sovereignty over the area that became British Columbia. Then they have to prove some degree of continuity from that occupation until today.Futhermore, the SCC made it very clear in Delgamuukw that it wants to see a negotiated settlement that achieves "the reconciliation of the preexistence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.”. IOW - natives groups most definately do not have title to the lands today. They have a right to prove their claim to title and the gov't must enter into good faith negotiations, however, the court has also set the clear expectation that aboriginal groups must be reasonable in their demands as well. The 2000 Nisga'a Treaty was settled OUTSIDE of the parameters of the 1997 Delgamuukw case (BCTC process). Treaties are not made out of court cases they are the result of concessions! By agreeing to a treaty the Nation is ceding land to the Crown. Otherwise there would be absolutely no need to enter into one!

You are misunderstanding my original post. The Nations in B.C. have title to all of their lands that were not and are not ceded or surrendered to the Crown. Guerin v. The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 (f) On December 6, 1957, the surrender of the lands was accepted by the federal Crown by Order in Council P.C. 1957- 1606, "in order that the lands covered thereby may be leased". The plaintiffs based their case on breach of trust. They asserted that the federal Crown was a trustee of the surrendered lands. Here are some exerpts from this government site http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/nsga/contex_e.html B.C.'s History with Treaties Since most treaty making over the last 100 years in Canada stopped at the Rockies, British Columbia's situation is unique. Until the negotiation of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, almost all of the province remained subject to outstanding Aboriginal land claims. The only treaties affecting the province are Treaty 8, which extends into northeastern B.C. from Alberta, and 14 limited-scope treaties on Vancouver Island. The federal government must have the land ceded or surrendered to them before the province can obtain it.

Seko Saga! I just wanted to clarify in the letter that The Haldimand Proclamation is NOT a treaty! It is a Royal (Crown) Proclamation and in being so is actually a Crown Law. It is equal to the Constitution of Canada under Crown Law.

This just gives the government a fiduciary duty to protect native rights. It doesn't say what limits to those rights are. You better read it again! The final decision states that the land must be ceded to the Crown. Also look at how the Nisga'a Treaty was dealt with here's a government link. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/nit_e.html Notice where it says: Beginning in the early 1970s, successive court cases confirmed that Aboriginal rights and title are legal rights and that they existed whether governments recognized them or not. In 1982, The Constitution Act was changed to recognize and affirm existing Aboriginal rights. This change did not create or define Aboriginal rights, rather, it "recognized and affirmed" existing Aboriginal rights and treaty rights. It is important to understand that Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are different. Aboriginal rights are not clearly defined, and must be established through the courts on a case-by-case basis. Treaty rights are negotiated B and in modern treaties rights can be exhaustively set out and described in detail. The governemnt uses sections 18 and 35 of the Indian Act in order try and get around tribal custom and usage. If you know and understand your Constitution you'll find that the Indian Act isn't even mentioned in as it is in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

No they don't - they will have to prove that they occupied the land to the exclusion of others before 1846, the year Britain declared sovereignty over the area that became British Columbia. Then they have to prove some degree of continuity from that occupation until today.The final words of the Delgamuukw SCC judgement which is the basis for you claim are quite telling: In other words, the SCC ruled that the only sovereign power is the gov't of Canada. The only rights that aboriginal groups have is the collective title of _some_ of the land. The SCC has made a clear statement that this issue is ultimately a political issue - not a legal one. Furthermore, the gov't is free to offer compensation in lieu of land if the land is already owned and the aboriginal groups would have no choice but to accept this compensation. It is unlikely that the SCC would ever rule that large amounts of privately owned land must be handed over to aboriginals. Here's one for you. Guerin v. The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.? You'd have to ask the Nations in B.C.

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.? That is entirely up to the Nations in B.C.

AHH ... but on sovereign Indigenous land ... that is not Canada ... then there will be choices for them. ... Canadas laws will not apply... That is their whole point in negotiations and discussions across the land! Unceded territiries (i.e., where government surrenders were not valid ... as most of them were not) ... unceded territories are sovereign Indigenous territories. It is not about race ... It is about Canadas original agreements and treaties with Indigenous people, that Canada is now bound by law to honour. It is not about making up new rules, but abiding by the original rules. Canada has abused its power over Indigenous people, and is now being held accountable. ... and we all knew we were on Indian land ... no big surprise ... Well said Saga you've done your homework! The province of British Columbia is what is refered to as "beyond the treaty frontier". That means that all of the Nations in that province are sovereign and still hold 100% title to their lands. The only treaty ever signed is The Nisga'a Treaty of April 13, 2000! The other Nations are still functioning via "tribal custom and usage".