Posit

By George you just solved the poverty problem in Canada. You have better start your campaign informing retirees, physically disabled people, single mothers, laid-off factory workers, and the working McPoor people that they are lacking skill, ambition and mental capacity. Good luck on that. Like most right wing simplistic suggestions, these ideas have never been well thought out, but like corporate myths get tossed around by simpletons as an unconscionable truth.

That's hardly an endorsement for the benefits of western imperialism. That's like saying the beggars rummaging the dumpsters outside of 5 star restaurants eat better than those rummaging McDonald's garbage bins. Your point, however, does reinforce that corporate myths and mass societal conditioning is more readily adopted than truth and reality.

AH, the great standard of living.....for whom? 1/3 of US citizens live at or below the poverty level. That is even greater in countries where western imperialism is exploiting the country for their resources. On the other side of the coin, 5% of Americans hold 90% of the wealth (and that also means that 10% of the remaining wealth is distributed to 95% of the population with the government pulling back as high as 65% back in taxes.) There is no "great standard of living" unless you happen to have been born into that wealthy 5%. AND the government services that we receive is a result of those abhorrent taxes we pay, while those 5% send money off shore away from paying their proportional shares. If we truly lived in a society with a democratic government, this would be reversed. But because the wealthy corporations control government WITHOUT our input, it is allowed to continue while the resources we depend on get sucked up and out of the country. Like an old elastic band this will break and the corporations will run away to exploit other countries....oh....they already are.....

Our government is nothing more than a Crown corporation, complete with letters patent. The are there to "manage" us - to keep us from interfering with other corporations responsible for stealing resources and returning profits to the elite cadre. The BNA was originally instituted for two very specific reasons. One was to protect resources and business interests from the economic manipulation of the US and the other was to form a military alliance that could defend their interests if the US decided to use greater force to gain access to our resources. Unfortunately over the years the US changed their tactics and now instead of stealing resources, or invading Canada they have taken to undermining the management of Canadian resource companies by buying controlling interests in publicly traded companies. The original legal structure of Canada the Crown Corporation, hasn't changed. Everything else about us being a democratic nation,or that the government is here to look out for our best interests is a myth. I mean when was the last time Canada ever paid dividends to us on all the resource profits they collect? Instead we are charged with keeping the company afloat by having to continually invest our taxes in it while they spend wildly on building and maintaining infrastructure that pays directly to those corporations that control them.

Then I take it you support Canada signing the declaration, Kimmy? I mean if in your opinion (and I so value your opinion) there is no effect on Canada then it must be something we need to guarantee for less-fortuntate countries, right?

There is nothing new here. Harper and the Reform party were clear about their agenda. They were all about denying international human rights, and allowing corporations full access to the government till. All of his playing down to the crowd is only a ruse to divert attention away from his real intentions. And since the beginning, he has been focusing on getting a majority in parliament so he doesn't have to answer to anyone when he begins to gut government regulation and rape the treasury. Harper and the Reformers under his command have an evil agenda.

We should note that it was under Bill Davis - another Conservative - that the Catholic School Boards became fully funded. Tory like Davis is simply pushing the Conservative agenda in using the public education system to promote Christianity.

None of the treaties cover east of Rice Lake in the text or in the agreements made with the Mississauga and Algonquin. There is that typical government slight of hand - they changed the maps to include lands not covered in the Huron-Robinson or the William Treaties. The fact is that all the land in eastern Ontario is unceded. The Algonquin's claim has already been admitted to by the government and so negotiation was on-going. However, the Algonquins felt it was improper for the government to provide permits to private companies to explore and mine lands they expected to be handed back during the agreements. Like jennie said, the government often allows developers to move ahead knowing full well that once the land is developed, there is little chance it will be returned. On the other hand the Algonquins know that stopping development will prevent that inevitability from happening and it lights a fire under government to do more than obfuscate and delay the process.

None of the current land occupations would have occurred if someone had made an attempt to develop the lands under claim. Money is not the issue. Getting the land back is all that matters to them.

The "huron" (Atoharonaron) were Confederacy Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga living on the north shores with the Mississauga in villages that housed approximately 4-5000 people. The huron were not the same as the Wendat. They were located well up the Bruce Peninsula. The Jesuits were sent into the wilderness without understanding the language or the people and the only way they could identify them was to describe them on the basis of the land marks. The St Lawrence and lake Ontario were adequate. However, when the Jesuits traveled to southern Ontario they came with Mohawk guides. That would not be possible, nor would the Jesuits make it to their destinations unless the villagers were friendly to the Mohawk. Archaeolgically speaking Southern Ontario is rife with villages connected through lithics and ceramics with the Confederacy Iroquois thought only to be located in what is now New York State. 50% of the chert located in these villages and surrounding areas (used for tools and arrow points) came from the Mohawk Valley in New York. 25% came from the shores of the Trent River - a common trail from the south to a number of Seneca villages. The remainder came from upper Lake Superior. It is widely know among historians that the Confederacy controlled the trade from BC to Quebec City and from Mexico to James Bay. The villages also demonstrate shells from the west coast, whale bone, copper from Lake Superior and soft goods from the south.

Having been here for a while jenny, that is typcial of the guys who have lost the argument. They try to take us into a new distraction away from the truth because they are afraid their myths will be revealed. Sadly they are so wrapped tight up in their head that they don't realize we know their myths and delusions have no basis in reality.

Taking a chapter out of the US Book of War mongering I see. What makes you think that anyone let alone the Canadian Armed Forces (of which probably 10% are aboriginal) are going to succeed at taking out militants. Just in case you haven't studied modern war tactics, the Taliban uses a historical Iroquois style of attack and retreat. From a military perspective it is hard to target a ghost. And that is why the US is failing in Iraq and we're getting whumped in Afghanistan. It is pretty hard to find and isolate someone that looks like all the others. Besides we have to conform to certain rules of war, when insurgents and freedom fighters do not. Quit trying to act tough. You wimps don't hold beans to what I know about why the Iroquois have been so successful when outnumbered 100 to 1. No wonder the US army recruits Mohawk warriors to train their Special Ops.....

Wrong. The quote is wrong too. The archeology of the Great Lakes - especially the north shore prove that the Confederacy was up here long before europeans came on the scene. Although, the government would have you believe this land was vacant or populated with migrants, it was not. There is evidence of clearly established Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawk villages dated over 1000 years ago. Get a new reference. This one is misleading you. And at the first time the Europeans arrived here there was no such thing as the US, Canada, New England etc. They were formed by entering into agreements with the Iroquois,and others.

The Mohawk like the rest of the Iroquois Confederacy have been in southern Ontario for 1000 years. The main government was in the area that is now New York State, but you have to remember that the US-Canada border didn't exist then (and for the Iroquois doesn't exist today). The area on the north shore of Lake Ontario from Montreal (St Lawrence) to the Sarnia (St. Clair River) and north to the Trent River were part of that territory.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Why We Can't Wait, 1963 Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)

First of all, it has only been about 40 years that natives could hire lawyers to pursue claims against the government and money has never been easily obtained. It has taken those 40 years for First Nations to research their claims and provide the necessary proof the government demanded in going to court. Then when the scales tipped in favour of settlement the government removed the claims from the court stream and created the Lands Claims process. The level of proof changed from having to satisfy the courts to trying to appease some stuck-up bureaucrats that weren't budging on any native getting more than he himself was entitled too. The land reclamation process, whereby natives occupy and reclaim the land changes the whole process back to negotiation - where the courts have intimated for decades that settlement should occur. The reclamations are only made on lands that the evidence support as belonging to that nation. With the evidence and with an interruption in the economic stability and development of lands, the government has its back against the the wall. On one side are the developers and prospecting companies yelling at the government to do something and on the other side are the natives holding the writ issued by the SCoC that demands government consult and accommodate First Nations on lands under claim, or in which they have a right. Ontario doesn't have any more claims than any other province. It is just that Ontario is first out of the gate since many of the nations here are relatively close, talk frequently about their progress and share information and strategies. I do know that a number of Mohawk delegations have been traveling out west in the last couple of years doing the same information sharing. It is only a matter of time before the natives in the western provinces get impatient and start using some of the more well executed plans of forcing the issue. Plus the western government and the federal government are reluctant to engage many of the First Nations, since there are relatively only a few bona fide treaties and territorial rights involved huge tracts of unceded lands. In the case of BC they have been trying to reach treaty agreements with little success. Few First Nations are willing to give up land for cash and for the most part that's about all the government has been offering.

Nope. Claims are where the natives say they are. The right to the land is proven over and over again not by continuous occupation but a pattern of contiguous occupations occurring over a number of generations / centuries. The rights are also entrenched in treaties and agreements with other First Nations, recognizing traditional hunting and fishing areas, or winter and summer camping grounds. The clue to a successful claim is finding any means to define their territory. Once this is established the right becomes automatic. The government must then prove that they not only willingly gave up that right, but that the agreement that was written also represents the understanding of the oral agreement when it was made. This is why the SCoC ruled that oral history must be given equal or better weight in these cases, since the Crown officers, settlers and business men were prone to lying and cheating the natives. it is also because the onus is on the government to prove legitimate transfers that they have chosen the route of negotiation. It seems the courts require a greater burden of proof than just some bureaucrat's say so.

Not for the government or the SCoC. That's all that matters. And while I respect your right to have an opinion in the issue, in the end it has no value.

I agree jenny. The Charter merely recognizes aboriginal rights. It cannot and does not prescribe them. Not quite guyser. They just have to prove they have a right to the land that preempts the colonial settlement.

Seems Six Nations Confederacy gets to choose how the bill is paid. That is why they call it "negotiation". They have already refused $125 million citing that they want the land back AND payment for loss of use. They''ll get it too IMO. They hold all the cards (and the historical records, illegal lands claims and a line of continuous grievances since the early 1800's complaining about the government's dirty dealings. Oh wait, now I remember.... During the settlement of the Penn Tract at Tyendinaga, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte received the village of Shannonville in whole after the government evicted the residents. Seems our glorious government admitted that no one ever bought those lands and in the end had no choice but to hand them back. Hmmmm.....that was a negotiated settlement too......

No, 80% of Canadians want lands claims settled once and for all. These types of events remind us that we haven't settled many......

Unfortunately your interpretation at law is simplistic and inaccurate. This statement clearly indicates that the pre-existing rights become part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it. This statement also indicates that any pre-existing right that were 'inconsistent with Crown sovereignty' were lost entirely. Wrong. This means that the Crown became responsible for the "pre-existing rights and laws". Nowhere is that meant that the Crown or Canada could change pre-existing rights or law. This in fact declares that unless First Nations extinguished those or surrendered those rights they were still in effect. Further, the court has ruled that if a First Nation has no specific law concerning a particular act, then the Crown has the right in common law to impose their laws in absence. Such is the case in the requirement to register firearms. When the idea first came out many First Nations quickly created their own gun registry that is not shared with the Canadian one. This exempts natives from having to register any fire arms with the Canadian registry. In other words, the aboriginal rights are subject Canadian law. Wrong. In other words Canadian citizens have to recognize those pre-existing rights and laws as if they are the our own. The last sentence fully explains that our government continues to usurp aboriginal law and treaties in favour of stealing land and resources from them. In law, that statement will be tested and reduced to insignificant in time by other learned judges. Mike Mitchell was the Band Chief of Akwesasne at the time he made this challenge. Of course being a product of the Crown he would have acknowledged Canadian sovereignty in that context. However, the Confederacy has clearly stated since then that Mitchell had no authority to make that claim for all Iroquois people. The Irquois Confederacy has asserted that they have never given up their sovereignty. Canada, its negotiators, its lawyers and the Governor General have all acknowledged their sovereignty since Mitchell was heard. That's all that matters in law. Further, the only identification that First Nations need to get into Canada and back to their territories is a Band Status Card. Passports are only required abroad and from what I understand the Iroquois passports are valid in about 26 countries so far. When US Homeland Security implements the requirement for Canadian citizens to hold passports while traveling in the US, the Iroquois will again be exempted. They have negotiated a new identification card with Homeland Security that the Confederacy will issue to their citizens.

Wrong. Any change to the Charter must be made at a Constitutional Conference where the politicians have the final say - regardless of what 50%+1 of Canadians think or want. In weighing out their decisions, politicians are charged with examining any proposals with an eye to the existing Charter, the meaning of human rights and the purpose of the amendment. Your 50%+1 wouldn't make it to the agenda of the first meeting if it would mean reducing any rights already contained in the Charter or those that have been further interpreted by the SCoC. Whether you dream it or not, no where in the Constitution - Crown Law- or in Canadian domestic law does it state that First Nations, aboriginal people or metis are "Canadian citizens" Rather treaties, historical records and even the Governor General have been clear that First Nations are sovereign nations who have a special relationship with the Crown (not Canada as a government). Further under international law, the only way that one group of people can be considered citizens of another sovereign nations is if the group willingly joins and accepts the terms of citizenship. When you can prove that instead of just flapping you gums about, then we might be able to get into the intricacies of the obligation of treating citizens under sovereign nations - which demonstrates by their treatment of native people that our government also believes that native people are sovereign. Your wishful thinking about the way things "might be" do not resemble the reality of the way things are. Sorry you are disappointed but there isn't much you can do about it except perhaps lead a revolt that no doubt would fall into apathy.

If you examine the "title" system in Canada, it is nothing more than a license to use the land. Under that title the Crown reserves the right to mine and harvest minerals and to expropriate (revoke your license) when they feel it is in the public interest. So your requiring proof of title is nothing but a waste of paper. Actually you are wrong. Oral tradition is not only accepted in court, but the SCoC ruled that it must be given equal weight as the British written record when determining the content of a treaty or agreement. That's because all agreements and treaties were oral agreements before the British wrote them down and in some cases altered the agreements. So not only is there contiguous occupation of Canada by First Nations, the written historical records confirm the occupation. So in order to defend against the claim the government must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a capitulation or agreement to abandon the traditional territories. Wrong again. Treaty law and pre-existing rights exceed Canadian law and are the same weight as Crown law (the Charter is "Crown law"). So in determining applicability the same tests must apply. Canada must prove that First Nations capitulated their rights to become Canadians.

More modern evidence indicates that NA populations began in the south and migrations took place northward. The Bering Strait Ice Bridge theory has been totally discounted and DNA evidence suggests that the migration might have taken place in the opposite direction - from the Americas to Asia. Currently this is one of the avenues pursued by anthropologists. However, it is clear that the English in Great Britain have been conquered many times over by various peoples and intermixed with half breeds of Italian German and even perhaps some East Indian or Africans. If we were to examine their DNA it is quite possible the displaced and homeless British don't even have an indigenous claim to Great Britain.