jennie

The validity of the Haldimand Proclamation has already been recognized by the feds in negotiations. Given that, Six Nations has the right to be consulted on all development in the tract while it is in dispute - i.e., until the claims are resolved. Beyond those legal details, I can't really respond to your speculations.

I have to disagree, somewhat Rue. The offer ($125m) was made several months ago by the government, based on Six Nations claim to the Haldimand Tract, via the Haldimand Proclamation. Perhaps I am not being clear, but I am trying: The only way the government would consider those four claims valid is if they accept the Haldimand Proclamation as valid. Now every other piece of land or claim has to be defended according to the legality of each transaction, so I am not suggesting that they now 'own' the Haldimand Tract. However, the Haldimand Proclamation must have already been accepted as valid by the government in order for them to make the offer on those four claims in the tract.

It is not clear until the facts are resolved in negotiations. The understandings of land possession are different in our two cultures, and that led to some misunderstandings. The Confederacy did have a problem with a lot of the transactions, Joseph Brant's included, and has petitioned the government repeatedly from then until now. If Joseph Brant was not authorized by the Confederacy for a particular transaction, then that transaction was not valid. The government knew the laws, and they knew that the consent of the community was required, and represented by the Council. It is premature for you to be making these statements because those facts have not yet been established. No, it is not clear at all that it was sold. It is only clear that the government wanted possession. Whether they gained possession legally has not been established. Just reading your source, I find this inaccurate statement: When Brant's military career ended, his career as a statesman began. Joseph Brant was a chief of chiefs. The Six Nations made up of the Mohawks, Senecas, Oneidas, Cayugas, Onondagas and Tuscaroras formed a confederacy of Natives on the continent of America and Brant was their chief. Each tribe had its own chief, but Brant was the chief of the united tribes. Brant was an appointed adviser and spokesperson for the Confederacy, but he was not a traditional Chief, and he was not "chief of chiefs". This is a misunderstanding perpetuated by the government to try to validate his transactions. I repeat: Jopseph Brant was not a traditional Chief of the Confederacy, but an appointed spokesperson.

It was never 'owned' by the Crown. It was traditional Iroquois land. The Mississaugas understood that, though they did not refuse the government's compensation money when they were asked to move. No I would not because legally it depends what authority he was given by the Confederacy Council. That remains to be established through negotiations. For example, the Confederacy says Brant did not have Power of Attorney from the Council for the deal he did in Moulton township. He went beyond his legal limits. Joseph Brant was not a traditional Chief, and not an authority for the Confederacy, except as they authorized him.

Now that makes sense ... though they don't clarify how they would deal with religion. I like this too: The Green Party believes the millions of dollars now spent on standardized testing should be spent rebuilding the education system. After 10 years, the province should be able to demonstrate the technical validity and reliability of their assessments, but they don't. I have a feeling much of this money is being wasted on very poor quality assessments. Otherwise why will they not provide the technical information when every other assessment program in North America does?

Every human being has a right to freely choose their nationality. A nationality cannot be forced on people.

Show me where I have. How they lived then, how our ancestors lived then ... how relevant is that to now? European settlers did starve without the help of the Indigenous civilizations. But how is this relevant? Is this still about "who is better"? That argument holds no weight in a society of equal human rights. That argument has no place in civilized discourse.

Then what WERE they renouncing?

Yes you are confused because I never said those things, though it may have been said in something I posted. First of all, the Confederacy Council (traditional government) is in charge of land issues, not the government's Band Council. The Confederacy Council has asked them to leave the site, yes, AFTER an agreement was reached with the developer. Yes, during the initial occupation of the site, and while an agreement was being worked out they were site security. However, after the agreement with the developer was signed some youth refused to leave the site when the Confederacy asked them to. Your confusion is simply a matter of not knowing the sequence of events and apparently intentionally trying to confuse yourself in order to defame people.

The Haldimand Proclamation has been validated, though not all individual claims have been clarified yet. In the meantime, they have the legal right to be consulted about all development in the tract. Since the provincial and municipal governments have not consulted them, they are exercising their rights themselves to stop development until consultation takes place and an agreement is in place. It is not all about land claims negotiations. Some of it is about their legal right, according to the Supreme Court, to be consulted about land uses pending land claims settlements. Six Nations were occupying the site and maintaining its security until an agreement was in place.

On the contrary, no argument should be framed around "Who is better", because frankly that is disgusting. A human being is a human being. The argument should be, and is, framed in law. "Who is better" will always remain a bigoted discussion of a non-issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with land rights, which are simply a matter of law.

All 28 claims in the tract are based on the Haldimand Proclamation. The only way the government would consider ANY claim in the Haldimand Tract valid is if the Haldimand Proclamation itself is considered valid.

There are questions about the validity of the 1841 surrender, and the 1844 surrender too. It remains to be seen what evidence the government provides to try to uphold its validity. Just because a document exists does not mean it is valid. The Toronto surrender existed too and the government claimed it was valid too, but it was little more than a blank piece of paper and eventually the government had to concede it was not obtained in good faith, and concede the Toronto Purchase to the Mississaugas.

Actually, it is more like this: You stole some of their their toys. They are saying "We will let the legal negotiation process decide ownership. However, in the meantime we are asserting jurisdiction over the USE of the toys to ensure that they are not destroyed."

The Confederacy has asserted jurisdiction over land use in the Haldimand Tract. Ownership of various parcels is what is being worked out in negotiations.

I suspect you wouldn't be successful in implementing that option. I think it falls in the realm of 'not a feasible option'.

It was not as clearcut as being in someone's house: Six Nations occupied the building site early in the morning. The OPP closed the site to the builders and crews. They got their tools, etc and left the site for the day. The Gualtieris came back later and went in the back way, avoiding the police. The Six Nations youth doing security on the site for the day saw someone go into one of the houses on the site and went to investigate. We haven't yet heard the full story of what happened next but there were injuries on both sides. At that time, the Confederacy's lawyer was talking to the developer, very close to an agreement and the agreement was announced the next day.

Really? I heard he was too busy working for the governments!

I don't believe that is their plan, no. Their plan is to shut down the operation entirely in this case.

Aboriginal title does include mineral rights, and it precedes any claim the 'Crown' may have. Aboriginal rights may include sharing revenues from the land, whether real estate, minerals, etc. All of your opinions are interesting, and I think already addressed in negotiations perhaps. At least, the government has validated the Haldimand Proclamation by making an offer for 4 claims in the Haldimand Tract. Six Nations entitlement in the Haldimand Tract seems to be recognized by the federal government. That is the basis for the Six Nations Confederacy asserting jurisdiction over land use in the entire Haldimand Tract, as they did recently.

This is a good background article... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ca...ae-d428356b1bbb Curious, though. The NP only vaguely alludes to the fact that the local landowners are also protesting. http://lists.miningwatch.ca/pipermail/news...uly/001440.html

Do they? You mean if our governments don't bargain in good faith, perhaps, we could run into a problem ... if our governments don't protect our property deeds. They issue them, they better guarantee them, I say.

Anybody has the right to belong to a collective. Families, extended families, hold property, companies, etc in common. They have a right. Chances are they are all the same race. So if families are not multicultural, they cannot collectively inherit ?? What ARE you saying here?

The alternative being sovereignty? With all of Canada's debts paid, land repatriated, etc ... you mean? You have to spell out the alternative. A person has a right to a nationality.

I am not sure what you mean. You mean if Canada recognizes their sovereignty?