charter.rights

To your point on laws according to race: its a false premise. First Nations are exempted from some of the restriction we are subjected to under the Charter because of a pre-history nation to nation relationship and the treaties made during that time that guaranteed they would not be restricted "as long as the sun shall shine and the grass shall grow". During the Trudeau era when the Charter was being fashioned Section 25 was left out and those historic relationships were ignored. Apparently before the Queen would sign it She insisted that natives be included specifically in order to protect the honour of the Crown. Although the details are sketchy at this time in Kahentinetha & Katenies v. THE QUEEN dated October 23, 2008, Madame Mireille Tabib of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Akwesasne and Kanehsetake are not part of Canada. If this report is accurate then it confirms what I have understood that Six Nations, Tyendinaga, Kanehsetake, Kahnawake, Akwesasne and Wahta, all being part of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy are separate nations under a different set of laws and not subject to our Charter or the laws of Canada, its provinces and territories. I'm sure the ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court but if it stands it should make for an interesting resolution since most of Southern Ontario was never ceded by the Confederacy and they would still hold legal jurisdiction over it. On another note: As well, I heard last night that apparently the 1844 surrender that was purported to surrender the major part of the Haldimand Tract never received approval from the federal government by way of an Order in Council and the surrender was never registered in the Indian Land Registry. There were accusations that then Superintendent William Jarvis had forged the signatures of 42 Chiefs (when more than half of them were in New York at the time of the signing), that Six Nations never agreed to surrender the land and only agreed to lease it. As I see it the courts are confirming that we are in a pickle where it concerns Six Nations and other Mohawk communities and these recent findings go a long way to counter your argument that rights entrenched in the Charter are race based but instead define what we cannot do to natives. Just like the Royal Proclamation 1763 (which defines our legal relationship with First Nations) the Charter prevents US from forcing native people to sell off their land and resources to satisfy our greedy developments. And finally, every land claim we make to territory that was acquired after 1763 is null and void unless we can prove that it was conducted under the requirements of that proclamation.

That's absurd. Quebec was winable. Harper blew the big one by cutting culture and then dismissing Quebecers opposition to it and threatening to throw their kids in prison for life. Trying to appeal to the west ended up offending Quebec. There are two things Quebec holds sacrosanct - their kids and their language and culture - and it was on those things that Harper lost Quebec totally by himself.

When you can frolic around in the woods enjoying life to its fullest, why would anyone living in a society that is based on the good will of the individual and the community waste their time smelting metals and enslaving themselves to greedy masters, especially when simple stone, ceramic, copper and bone tools produced the same efficiency? The advancement of technology in early Europe did not benefit the average citizen. It benefited the land and industry barons and used the efforts of enslaved workers to line their pockets. Again, it was such an inferior way of thinking.

That is a foolish premise - no doubt coming from simplistic point of view. Sure they knew about the wheel post contact. But in traversing rivers and lakes, rocky, marshy and densely forested terrain it was nearly useless in the first hundred years or so in getting around, Instead the Europeans adapted to the "superior" native mode of travel - the canoe - to get around from place to place. So in reality the wheel was an inferior and most useless tool in NA. I happened to be listening to a number of archeologists speak recently about the use of stone tools. In their discussion they talked about the uncertainty surrounding the use of certain artifacts. Mostly their belief is limited to comparisons of more modern tools we have today. But they are finding that the assumptions that were made 20 years ago are being disqualified for new understandings today. The discussed how advancements in stone technology were assumed to have come about and how important the skill set in manufacturing them was - apparently lost in today's world. There discussion also drove home some very important points about stone technology versus modern technology. In essence many modern tools may very well have set us back in terms of the human capacity to do work. Some examples: For an experienced knapper an arrow point could be fashioned in about 10 minutes. Making an arrow from the point might take another 10 minutes. An efficient and strong bow can be made in about a hour. Adding the time to collect the materials we could add in about another 20 minutes. The gross amount of work used for producing a bow and arrow using a simple (albeit primitive) skillset would be about 1 1/2 hours. A gun on the other hand might cost $300-$500. Bullets another 20 bucks or so. For the average hunter that would represent about 10 to 15 hours of human work that would be required to obtain a tool for hunting. That is 10 to 15 hours less time spent hunting. If the gun breaks down during the hunt time would be lost obtaining the necessary tools (at another cost) to make the repairs or alternatively send the rifle to a shop that specializes in repairs. Once the bullets are used up then more work is required to pay for more. However, if a stone point arrow is used to take game it use is not done. It can be reused a few more times before the point or the shaft would have to be replaced. If the bow failed in the middle of the hunt then the resources were often readily available at no monetary cost to make the repairs. The point is, in a world searching for efficiencies the most technologically advanced tool is not always the best choice. Simple technologies are very often equally effective and less expensive to implement. In older days the simple technologies could be shared among many people, meaning that the manufacturing process was not only widely available but was easily innovated and adapted to the use of different materials available in a region. Today we have traded all that general knowledge (and it is ever so true in farming practices) for specialists and dependence on imports and commercial greed. All the while that knowledge is being lost. I don't know about you but I hardly see that as a superior form of culture. I would say that doing more work for less effect and benefit is a regression and devolution.

No. We are a product of an evolved civilization - one that includes native people. At the time of contact we were no better suited to this country than native people would have been to our stinking and septic European cities. One can easily argue that the development of this land that came as a result of the use of the wheel was a devolution to the advancement of the human race. In reality one does not need the wheel to farm and hunt. The wheel has become necessary only because people are too lazy to harvest their own food. And in the early days of post contact there was little need for commerce. Our dependence on commercial enterprise could very well be the end of our civilization as we know it. The recent problems in the stock market may be the beginning of that end..... Native people also did some very nice metal and ceramic work as well.

Still countering fact with your myths, I see...... The wheel was not an important invention in Native cultural epic. It had to be fashioned out of durable materials and was prone to broken axles an hubs that record days and sometimes weeks to repair. The canoe on the other hand was well suited to North American travel. It was easy to make. It was made out of materials found almost everywhere one needed to travel. It was disposable and recyclable and could be carried over terrain that would destroy most wheels. Even when the first settlers first arrived the wheel was a most useless tool. You should also remember that the wheel was not an European invention. It was like most of Europe's tools - stolen from more advanced cultures. Compared to other indigenous cultures around the world, the Europeans where no better than the Feregni in Star Trek - thieves of wealth and culture. Pre-contact North America was a highly advanced civilization. The reason you can't see that is that you are so stuck in mythology that your thinking mind can only relate to the myths you have been told. When you start stating the facts, I'll let you know......

Hayden King spells it out nicely..... Indigenous cultures rivalled those of civilizations around the globe

No, Joseph Brant did not sell off most of the Haldimand. He sold off allotments within the Haldimand Tract that did not and could not change the status or boundaries of the Haldimand Tract. And under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 selling off part of the Haldimand Tract would have been impossible unless and until all the rules for a surrender had taken place. Essentially those farmers became subjects of the Haudenosaunee. The Haudensaunee have input many records of agreements, letters of understanding and grievances that have been submitted between the Crown and the Haudenosaunee. The importance of records and maps such as the Mitchell Map 1757 are to rely upon wholly, but to confirm the understanding of the British at the time the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made and to certify that the records the Haudenosaunee hold are accurate. What is inaccurate is when the Solicitor General states that the 1844 agreement is valid without any proof, or substantive evidence. The myths that that perpetuates does nothing for correcting past wrongs and insteads helps someone like McHale spread his racist lies. It doesn't matter whether the Mitchell Map is certified since it is the basis for the Royal Proclamation 1763 and provides the boundaries of different nations at that time. What is important is that it defines the direction that the Crown was going in declaring the proclamation - essentially in Ontario that means it was set out to protect the interests of Six Nations to the Ottawa River. Since these two documents declare the legal beginning of the relationship between the Crown and Six Nations, nothing else forward could venture away from the intent. The Haldimand Proclamation must have had a similar and consistent intent and since the legal recognition was that Six Nations "owned" all of Ontario in 1757, then the Haldimand Proclamation was made not to purchase land (which Six Nations already owned) but for protecting that particular land base from colonial expansion. And no the Huron, Neutrals, Tobacco were not "exterminated". No doubt that is just another of McHale's racist propaganda you are repeating. I have already stated what happened and that the Huron were really Six Nations people living on the north shore of lakes Ontario and Eries long before Europeans started migrating here. And they are not the same as the Wendat who occupied the Midland region of Ontario in the 1600's.

There is no fantasy involve on my part since the SCC judges have said as much - that as aboriginal claims come before the SCC, they must provide more detail. They would prefer that the government at least make an honest attempt to define what aboriginal rights mean so they have a reference. But when they don't the SCC must do it for them. And of course the record shows that more rights (and not less) are being defined and solidified as we speak. I mean what does consultation mean? The SCC says it means "meaningful consultation and accommodation. What does meaningful mean, and what does accommodation mean? Yet the government is reluctant to provide a basis for the meanings of both terms and prefers to ignore it outright, the SCC judges have stated that they WILL provide definitions if the government refuses to get themselves involved. That is reality my friend, not some made up fantasy you have of changing the supreme law of Canada with a simplistic opinion.

Wrong again my cheezy friend. Joseph Brant sold land within the confines of a sovereign and independent nationhood. Land was sold to farmers and labours in order to clear the land for future prosperity. Other lands were leased with the same intent. In fact the British also sold land for settlement with a goal of populating the wilderness. Doing that owever, did not diminish the Crowns sovereignty over the lands they sold. Six Nations to this day asserts their sovereignty and there is plenty of evidence to support their claim. The FACT is that the legal history concerning ownership and sovereignty over lands began in 1757 with Mitchells Map and ownership was certified under the Royal Proclamation 6 years later (a very short time period in 8th century administration). By recognizing that the Mississauga were part of the Confederacy and the Royal Proclamation 1763 was instrument to obtaining land, the British had to have known (or ought to have known under the law) that the Mississauga had no more authority to sell Confederacy land than did the US to sell New York land. As such the Huron-Robinson treaty and the Williams treaty are ineffective under the law. Southern Ontario - almost all of it - belongs to Six Nations and has never been ceded under the requirements of the Royal Proclamation 1763. That is the law today as it was in 1764 and nothing can change that. The Wendat were in Georgian Bay region. The "Huron" -meaning North Shore Confederacy Iroquois - were in control of southern Ontario and were not realated.

There was lots of incentive for bringing Quebec under the Constitution too, but t failed miserably. The SCC has so far indicated that the definition of aboriginal rights is going to become more detail every time smeone appears before them. There is no more interest in the general public to mess with the Constitution there there is for hairy men to go in for a waxing. You can dream all you want but in the end all you are left with is a fantasy.

Yes. And Hitler was also elected through a democratic process.

I won't be surprised to see the Harper Conservatives have spent the surplus and put us into a deficit. This election contains a surprise and I think this may be it.

The majority rules ONLY within the freedoms defined under the Charter. You can dream all you want about the Charter being changed but the modern reality is it can't. Damn we can't even get Quebec to sign it despite having a remedy thrust three or four times. Majorities mean nothing when we elect politicians who don't care about us once they are elected. The wrongs didn't just occur 150 years ago. They are occurring today, as well.

There in is the problem with you position. The Royal Proclamation 1763 - protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms today - prohibited British subjects and Canadians from purchasing any Indian lands. Only the Crown could negotiated a cede and only as long as a number of fully democratic community events took place. So far the government hasn't been able to establish that Six Nations lands were properly ceded, or if monies to be paid for leases, or surrenders were ever paid. In civil jurisprudence failure to prove title, or failure to prove consideration (payment) reverts the agreement to before it was made. While the government has made a statement that the 1844 surrender is proof, Six Nations has said it is not. Simply this proves nothing but indicates a starting position in negotiations. The Ojibway - the Mississauga were the 8th nation of the Iroquois Confederacy according to Mitchells Map 1757. The Petun, and Neutrals were also adopted into the Confederacy and now are represented by their member nations the Seneca.As stated before, the Wendat were killed by the French introduction of diseases. Those that did survive, went to Quebec to live. The "Huron" were not the Wendat - that is a historical error. The Huron were North Shore Confederacy Iroquois and their territory extended north to the Ottawa River.

Funny thing is I HAVE heard all the tripe spewed here...over and over again...

Why? Because YOU say so? Factually, tango is correct. It is the law and it is supported by rulings of the Supreme Court. We cannot arbitrarily ignore the provisions of treaties, agreements or proclamations just because we don;t like them or they do not benefit us directly. All we can do is to either comply fully or negotiate with First Nations for an better part of the pie...keeping in mind we are in a lesser position once we begin negotiations and they hold the upper hand.

Bloods and Paigans fighting in a bar isn't racism in any stretch of the imagination. They are the same "race" if you want to get into the semantics. But what I know happens are national rivalries that occur from historical slights...simlar to what has happened over the ages between the Turks and the Greeks, or the Armenians and anyone else...... In all the circles I have sat, among the 1000's of native people I have talked to, smoked their pipes, been invited to their sweats or sat in a bar having a beer or two many, I have never heard ANY native - be it Iroquois, Ojibway, Cree, Algonquin, Inuit or Blackfoot ever make a racist comment as you have implied. In fact the term "whitey" (I noticed you capitalized it...a Freudian slip, I think) is a term I have often heard non-native racists use when talking about their feelings of inferiority in addressing native current events. Even Kengs333 said at one point that the Iroquois had a derogatory term that meant whitey and I challenged him on that. The other derogatory terms that you mention are often common slags I have heard in bars filled with rednecks - especially western ones - when referring to various communities in most major cities. From the sounds of things I think your Fredian slip says it all and you are transposing your views onto your friend. From a legal perspective tipping the scale in favour of a minority is not racism, nor special interest. It is necessary to tip the scales in order to restore justice and equity, when minorities have been seriously limited by a law or practice in society. So when there are seeming imbalances that favour natives - such as in the application of arrest procedures and the collection of evidence - it is not racism or specialty that is in play. It is simply justice protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sorry. One of those timed-out double posts...

Health care and education are fiduciary responsibilities the government became obligated for after they imposed band governance systems on First Nations, against their will. Had native people been left alone, been allowed to continue to hunt, fish and farm on their lands without interference, raise revenue (that was banned in 1920's along at the same time as the imposition of the Indian Act governance) from their own manufacturing and commercial enterprises, been partners in the resource harvesting that has taken place on their lands since then and been able to continue with their traditional government system it is likely that modern day support for education, health and infrastructure would be unnecessary. The government and the media continue to assert the myth that band governments HAD to be replaced because they were corrupt and ineffective. But the truth of the matter is that the First Nation traditional governments - especially Six Nations Confederacy councils who were replaced at gunpoint - were an obstacle to the government imposing its will. In particular, Six Nations had been complaining about encroachment on their lands and were threatening to sue the government if there was no action on their grievances. The Canadian government choose instead to remove their Chiefs Council at gunpoint, lock the council house, install a colonial government system AND creates laws that prohibited any First Nation from hiring lawyers or taking any other action against the government for wrong-doing, again against the will of Six Nations people. About the same time or shortly there after, the government also impose an income tax system and later imposed sales tax system against the rest of us against our will. Yet we simply went along - even though the myth that the income tax system was and is warranted. Once our early 20th century takeover of Six Nations occurred and Six Nations people were prohibited from sell wares or buying goods off reserve, like with the tax system we also silently accepted the responsibility for their perpetual care. The only way out of this situation is to find a way to get out of their way, restore the treatis and agreements we had with them, and then let them adopt and evolve their own government systems. It is our constant and perpetual interference in their lives and livelihoods that have plunged First Nations reserves into third world conditions. We did because the colonial system is corrupt and greedy and we used the resources and their oppression to advance greed and profit for a few privileged in society. The myth our forefathers believed was that we also somehow benefited and their oppression was somewhat justified in light of the myths that native people were lazy, unskilled and incapable of running their own affairs. To the chagrin of industrial profiteers however, native people were efficient manufacturers and tradespeople but they were not obsessive consumers. Their ability to accept less than normal housing furnishing, clothing and ethereal goods and services irritated the captains of industrial society. The government being a corporation that is charged with supporting other corporations was forced to change the culture to make native people consumers like the rest of us. Yet they continue in large part to resist the consumerism that obsesses us and many are satisfied with a less than average wage.

You have established that your ~thinking~ is convoluted, obtuse and tainted with a bias against First Nations. Six Nations people have a slightly higher crime rate and criminal element than any mainstream community - but still less than Brantford....However, when you consider that the government has criminalized standing up for one's rights, then the actual crime rate drops considerably.

See above re: "special" relationship. Brantford has much more crime than Six Nations. Perhaps you should focus your obsessive attention on that community, instead since if could be our business. However, Six Nations is really none of yours or my business - period.

Yes it would be unreasonable. Ah, you missed the "special" relationship they with us have under the Charter. And if you really want to get into it...WE are visitors to their country...simply by living here... We've seem to have forgotten that fact....

Six Nations people are not Canadians. How they as a community conduct themselves is none of our business any more than what happens in Detroit is any of our business as Canadians. The unfortunate thing is that McHale is hiding behind all this kind of rhetoric too. He says in his election platform that he will require the OPP to arrest natives. Yet politicians cannot interfere in police operations, the OPP are a provincial responsibility and McHale is lost on that subject. He says he will change the law to allow non-natives to put liens on Six Nations property. Yet again he is out of touch, since Six Nations are not Canadians and even if they were, their rights and our relationship with them is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. McHale is out of touch. He is in this election for one thing only. It is an avenue where he can slag natives in a public forum - something the courts had restricted him from doing under his bail conditions. He is no doubt IMO a racist with a racist agenda using any means - including the bastardization of the election process - to get a soapbox to do it from.

Rather than being so opinionated, why not try to understand really what is being said. Of course I realize that you and the other usual suspects prefer to attack the messenger when something is said that your contradicts your opinion. But really if you had any integrity you would be discussing the subject matter instead of defending someone who claims to believe in Aryan mythology and promotes racism in his every breath...... BTW the next comment that is directed at me personally will be forwarded to the moderators. You and I both know this won't be the first time you will be spoken to about drifting from the subject of discussion.....