mister_v

Neither of those documents is a treaty. Nor do those documents include any hint of the natives maintaining any kind of sovereignty. In fact, both documents go in the other direction. The Royal Proclamation says outright that the King's dominion extends over all territories, including lands inhabited by natives. The Haldimand Proclamation is implicit and Canadian courts have interpreted it as the Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown via that document and therefore are subjects of the Crown. Today the Crown is embodied in Canada and her provinces. Of course, the British never intended the Haldimand Proclamation to allow the Six Nations any kind of sovereignty.

I see that you're quoting from Kahentinetha Horn now. Thats the only reason I need to mark you as irrelevant. More Horn drivel. Buffalo Creek is the exact intrigue I was referring to. You've screwed yourself by relying on that as evidence that Brant was "removed".

Which allowances are these? That representatives from the Confederacy are at the negotiating table? They are only there because the band council gave them the green light. Or are you referring to the fact that the police haven't made another attempt to remove the occupiers from the site? That can be chalked up to a lack of balls on the part of McGuinty who doesn't want to have another Ipperwash on his hands. The hope is that the occupiers will see the light through negotiation. Kahentinetha Horn and her partner in crime who make up the so-called Women Titleholders do not qualify as a clan mothers. The chiefs were always the ones who signed the land surrenders, not the women. As for Joseph Brant, his "removal" as a chief was part of some intrigue involving the deputy superintendent of Indian affairs in Upper Canada at the time. The superintendent wanted to discredit Brant in his attempts to get the lands of the Haldimand Proclamation granted in fee simple, so he tried to get the support of the natives at the Grand River in getting him removed. When he couldn't convince the Indians there to remove Brant, he went to the portion of the Six Nations in the USA to get their signatures. That is where your "evidence" of his removal comes from. However, the chiefs at the Grand River always backed Brant and continued him in his position. As Brant importantly pointed out, those of the Six Nations who decided to remain in the USA had no say over the disposition of the Grand River lands.

Their sovereignty is not recognized by the government. In fact, court decisions have come down on that side of the argument. You see, Six Nations are not like other indian bands in Canada. They are subject to the wording in the Haldimand Proclamation which states quite clearly that they are there under the protection of the crown. Courts have recognized that as meaning that the Six Nations owed allegiance to the crown and are therefore subjects of the crown. At the time Joseph Brant made the land deals he had been given, in essence, power of attorney for the Six Nations on the Grand. He was not coerced in the least, he was very savvy. As for requiring only women to sign, you contradict every other Six Nationer out there who say that some of the deals weren't valid because they didn't have enough chief's signatures on them. Never has anyone from Six Nations claimed the deals weren't valid because men signed them rather than women.

quite simply, if the people living on 6n land do not like it that 6n are sovereign, they can leave, and no, they cannot hold onto territory that is not theirs. i'm glad to see you have at least recognized that 6n is sovereign. Here's an FYI for you. Six Nations is not sovereign. That ended the minute Joseph Brant and his followers decided to settle on the lands of the Haldimand Tract under the wording laid out in the proclamation. Joseph Brant's protests to the contrary and those since then matter not. They are subjects of the Crown which now rests in Canada.

Settlers? What century are you living in? It really doesn't matter whether you accept Canada's existence or not. The Israelis refer to something called "facts on the ground". Well, the facts on the ground in the lands north of the USA are Canada, her people and her institutions. And they encompass it all.

Your thinking that the land belongs to natives is only a frame of mind. So what if their ancestors showed up first. In reality the land belongs to whoever has the biggest hand cannon. Thats the way its always been and thats the way it always will be. At this point in history Canada is the big boy north of the parallel and there isn't anything that can be done to diminish that fact. So instead of bitching, try hopping onto the Canadian bandwagon. There's plenty of room and you get to keep your traditions just like all other people's inhabiting this great country.

It certainly does, just like it did for your ancestors who used to go around kicking ass when they were the big boys in the neighbourhood.

This is a major show stopper. I think TS is only considering a scenario in which aboriginals are a massive majority in their nations. I don't think TS has considered the idea of non-aboriginals wanting to have positions of power. For example, can a non-native become a clan mother in the Confederacy? Can a non-native become a Confederacy chief? If not, what would happen if non-aboriginals formed a majority within the Confederacy? Another thing that hasn't been considered is non-aboriginals living within the territorial boundaries of the aboriginal nations don't think that they are citizens of these nations (they feel they are Canadian). Therefore, they don't feel the laws of the aboriginal nations apply to them. I'm getting deja vu.

3500. Try perhaps a couple hundred. As for the arrests, if the OPP had allowed the rally to go onto the DCE there wouldn't have been any arrests. Of course that doesn't take into consideration the likely arrests of natives who would have gone into a frenzy and attacked the non-native protestors without provocation the moment they stepped onto the occupied land. The real issue in Caledonia is a bunch of Six Nations people who can't accept the decisions their ancestors made. The land surrender documents are readily available in the public domain. Ongoing harassment of those living adjacent to the DCE doesn't qualify as an "inconvenience". Nor does blockading a major roadway for weeks or vandalising public property. Detours. Very nice. Too bad there aren't any lands being illegally occupied by Canadians. Its all Canada. Not yours. Surprising that this only turned up in Six Nations news. More wishful thinking on your part. The Confederacy spreads a rumour in order to placate their followers (who by no means make up a majority on the Six Nations reserve), brace them for the bad news that the government has stuck to its position that the land claim is, and always has been, complete crap. This came in response to the uproar following the news that the government was paying for hydro to allow a bunch of fanatics to squat on the DCE. *yawn*. Threats of extortion. Oka and Ipperwash were like annoying little mosquitos buzzing around the dozing Canadian giant. Keep up your activities and you'll awaken the giant, to your great sorrow. Happily, you are not sovereign. You are Canadian. At least this sentence is true. They're a criminal organization, involved in drugs, smuggling and intimidation of natives who oppose them. The big question, Gregg, is how are you able to look at yourself in the mirror? You've failed your people. With your mindset you keep them bogged down in looking backward, instead of walking forward to prosperity as part of Canada.

You're too late. Tsi beat you to it.

Take a closer look at Tsi's postings, not only on this board but on other boards on the web (he uses the same name). The man is a native supremacist and a provocateur. He even freaks out and alienates his fellow natives with his hard core attitude. He is not deserving of any form of common decency. You will notice that from my comment he immediately insinuated violence. A real tough guy. On another board he hinted that he and his merry band of delinquents had broken into homes in Caledonia while the owners were away. Defend that animal if you must. But if you hop into bed with pigs, you'll end up dirty too. Concerning the Jay Treaty, I believe that Canada does not recognize it but does permit passage across the border as an aboriginal right with some restrictions. For example, crossing from the United States into Canada is site specific, ie. the claimant must be crossing at a point for which there is evidence that the claimant's band historically would traverse that general geographical area (for Six Nations that would be in New York State).

*yawn*

Congrats Tsi. Not only can you cross the border to buy your toilet paper, you don't pay any duty on it. Your arsehole appreciates those soft American brands.

Joseph Brant was given what amounted to power of attorney by the Six Nations at the Grand River. Just because you don't like the end result today, doesn't mean it wasn't valid. Deal with it.