sagaagain

1st-there is no evidence that has been forwarded that the surrender of the land (Grand River Tract) did not have a proper description in the governments statement of defence or anything I have seen that has been provided since then. In fact, if that is the yardstick to measure by, the original surrender of the entire tract by the Mississauga to the Crown was most definitely faulty as the land had not even been surveyed at the time of the original surrender. Therefore, the land is not Six Nations and they should leave and give it back to the Mississauga. That is the problem with the logic being espoused that no land can be surrendered to the Crown, but we want the land that the Mississauga surrendered as it is ours. 2nd, there is also evidence that the Grand River lands were surrendered with the consent of the people. This accused theft did not happen overnight. It was a matter that was debated for a number of years by Six Nations in the 1840's. There is no evidence outside of the negotiations where the evidence is being presented, obviously. However, some evidence is leaking out, it appears. The 1841 surrender most definitely did not have the consent of the people. They consented to lease the land to the government to build the Plank Road, not sell it, and their protest of the 1841 surrender began in 1842. There are guidelines in international law now that stipulate the characteristics a surrender must have in order to be valid today. Land description is one of them. The Mississaugas were fully compensated for their lands at the time, at the going rate, and retain no claim there. You can rail against the fates S&T ... but you'll only get a headache!

I have made no accusations about you nor have I made any complaints to the moderator about you. The moderator alone made the decision to ban you. I have refuted every argument you have made despite the ridiculous accusations that you hurl at me.BTW - I am sure many of the long time posters on this rolling on the floor and laughing at the suggestion that I am the mouthpiece of the Conservative party. You have not successfully refuted any of my arguments... but that is another thread in itself! I have removed your name from my post here. If you do not want to be identified, you can remove your post here. I have done nothing to deserve banning. Thanks for the vote!

International law also has a precident to allow peoples to break away from sovereign states when they clearly express their will in a referendum. So even if the Six Nations is successful in asserting its sovereignty over the land it will not be able to hold onto the land because the voting power of 500,000 or so people will always prevail over the voting power of 20,000 or so. I think you misunderstand ... Six Nations wants the land, not the people or the buildings. If the government compensates properly for occupied land, there will be no issue. However, judging by the position that SN is currently taking - that they will govern those areas - it appears that the government is trying to bluff its way out of compensating properly and Six Nations is clearly calling their bluff. At least that is my take on it. Quit banning me and you might learn more!!

They are not negotiating the 1995 claim. That was a Band Council claim for money. They are negotiating a new comprehensive claim to the entire Haldimand Tract, and self governance too. The government is not as cocky as it was in 1995 because there are new precedents in International law about what constitutes 'unlawful surrender'. For example, a surrender without a proper description of the land is unlawful; A surrender without the consent of the people is unlawful; Lands encroached are still legally theirs, etc. The protest only brought the government to the table. It is the law that is changing the government's position.

How would you know anything about what was said behind closed doors? The gov't may have made some ambiguious statements intended to facilitate peaceful talks with the Six Nations people but that is a long way from 'acknowledging that they have title'. The Six Nations is _not_ going to get most of the land it claims back. If necessary the gov't will throw some cash at them to buy silence and will likely include some currently unowned crown land for symbolic purposes. You underestimate their persistence and their preparedness. I know you do not like me blowing your biased arguments out of the water ... but somebody has to inject some reality here! ...And how would you know what I know... From recent comments here on other boards, it is clear that negotiations are progressing quickly, and that compensation for settled lands within the Haldimand Tract is a sticky point ... which suggests that title is already established... as does the report that developers are putting projects on hold.

I have been banned from the site because I am able to counter arguments against indigenous land rights, in particular, the rights of the Haudenosaunee Six Nations to the Haldimand Tract. I have not broken the rules of the board, but I have only incurred the wrath of a user who is unhappy with my intelligent and well supported arguments since they successfully refute her arguments. I returned to the site with another name, and was quickly banned again for the same reason. This is not a discussion board. It is a tory propaganda machine. Opposing views are only wecome here as cannon fodder, not as thoughtful information. Beware …