charter.rights

No of course not. But there is a possibility of returning an equivalent acreage and cash for loss of use. The option that is being sought at Six Nations and the Haldimand is to return jurisdiction over the land, return all vacant and public properties to Six Nations for their exclusive use and provide cash in leiu of those lands that cannot be returned. IN the case of Tyendinga and Deseronto, the Mohawks there seek immediate return of all of the Culbertson tract to their jurisdiction (which includes about 980 acres part of which is half of Deseronto, and have the government buy-out those residents that want to leave and hand over their properties to the Mohawks. They are also seeking cash for loss of use. This BTW was the solution at Shannonville just 10 years ago. There are still some non-natives living there, and when they are ready to sell their properties the government will buy them out. Since more than half of the residents of Deseronto are native, it is a difference kettle of fish.

You mean Taiaiagon, formerly Fort York and now Toronto? All of Toronto was a Seneca Village long before any settlers showed up. Under the Royal Proclamation 1763 the British were required to obtain a surrender before they could occupy the land (being Indian Lands). This was never done. Low and behold the Mississauga have a claim in for Toronto. They have already received the notification that they still hold title of Toronto Islands and it will just be a matter of time before they settle for the rest of Toronto. It doesn't matter what happened to the land after the illegal occupation but it does matter that it was stolen without the Iroquois' consent.

I never said it was utopia (all though many Jesuits were chastised by the Church for calling it "Paradise" in their reports). But neither was pre-contact Europe a utopia either. It was full of disease, unsanitary, indebted lower classes, and dirt farmers trying to subsist off of cabbages and rye. Technology did not give them a good life and most had more work to do than pre-contact Iroquois, in comparison. Communities of 5,000 to 25,000 people had an ordered and prosperous life where everyone shared in the workload and in the bounty. Life there was not too hard in comparison. As I said earlier, pre-contact Europeans were not more advance the pre-contact Iroquois people. What you don;t understand are the facts, not some bubblegum history cards they taught you at school.

It is fact that Natives occupied North America approximately 3000 years before the first hominids entered Europe. You are a product of a false education. Go read some more. They weren't telling you the truth. They had a good reason to. Your pathetic education does not match beans to my expertise on the subject as a historian and present day researcher of aboriginal history. As I suggested earlier to have to examine archives and British documented records before you get a clear picture of the real history of North America pre and post settlement. As well, there is no such thing as "aboriginal religion" anymore than being a Baptist defines all facets of Christianity and Judaism combined. Spiritual belief systems within the Iroquois as an example had only one commonality - they were individual. This is the result of the general philosophy of Iroquois people in that no one can impose upon another a blief or understanding and everyone, including children are to learn and understand in their own ways. The same type of thing holds true in the Anishnabec who's creation stories do not have the same concepts or origins as the Iroquois. Very different. The Iroquois Confederacy was organized more than 1000 years ago - a time that Europeans faced malevolent monarchies and dictatorships. Just think...1000 years ago even the opinions young children were considered in a participatory. It is event longer still back to the Mayan and before that agriculture, cities and law and order was a way of life in the Americas. The primary differences between the pre-contact Europeans and Iroquois is that the latter had no need for weapons of mass destruction. They did not seek out to destroy peoples or rape and pillage neighbouring villages. Instead they operated on a system that Peace was paramount and every action that disturbed the peace had to be calmed or removed. As well since North America is full of interconnecting waterways, there was little need for mass transportation equipment. Even the horse was rejected by all but the Plains peoples since a horse could not easily navigate many of the rocky passages that are easily traveled by canoe. Plus canoes did not have to rest or stop to eat, so waterway travel was much swifter than horse and buggy. I know an Elder from one of the reserves that I deal with every day that tells of a time when Iroquois runners used to regularly travel from the Mohawk homelands ( in present day near Ogdensburg, New York) to Taiaiagon (present day Toronto) in under 4 days. A canoe was only used to cross the St Lawrence at Frontenac and the rest was by foot day and night. The runners did not eat until they arrived at Toronto, then feasted for 2 or more days. Farming and living in organized villages, the Iroquois did not need to travel long distances except to send messages to distant villages in the north shore. They did not need metal implements realizing the the skill of making clay pots or chert arrow points was much less labour intensive. Metals were reserved for ornaments, having to retrieve copper from the North Shore of Superior in trade for tobacco. The difference to Europeans is that the rich elite masters forced slavery and poor conditions on their peasant servants, while the Iroquois had an egalitarian soceity where no one person - not a child or an old person - was worth less than anyone else. Food was shared equally. Tools and implements were community property, and disputes were solved with face to face discussions and not intermediaries and courts controlled by the very rich. In North America the Iroquois and many other First Nation societies had little need for anything, while the poor in Europe always had to better themselves and free themselves from enslavement. Thus most often that freedom came through violent means, by joining a pillaging army or by stealing from another less fortunate. The European system is built on competition while the Iroquois system was build on equal division of all things. That in itself is the main difference in world views and the reason the Iroquois were cheated so often, having believed that the Europeans were men of their word and would treat the Iroquois the same way they treated the newcomers.

Ah so you have attention deficit disorder, right? thjis only 4 posts back: Precontact Europeans were not more advanced - another of the many myths you seem to rely upon but very far from the truth. Thats a pretty big statement. How bout you back it up? You know, with facts, not just opinion or fabrications. Where do you want to start? With the smelting of metals, the socialization of communities, evolution from hunter-gather to farming? What? Why don't you start with that which is most basic, the invention of the wheel? Oh, thats right, you can't because they didn't. Europeans didn't invent the wheel. So try again. Care to show me where I said they did? Duhboy - look two lines up. Ya you said it and BTW the Europeans didn't invent much in their day and age. Most of their technologies were stolen from plundering, murdering and raping other countries around the world. Such a violent crowd that YOU no doubt are descended from, no?

In a true democracy why would anyone want their leaders to tell them what the issues are and how to solve them. True leadership IMO involves listening skills and solicits consensus to understand and solve major problems. This election may just prove the change we have been asking for. I also think that Dion has some stuff up his sleeve that will materialize once the gauntlet is thrown down tomorrow.

Warning Violent Troll above.

Europeans didn't invent the wheel. So try again. And yes natives were metal working, including smelting metals almost 3000 years before Europeans discovered. There have been farming in organized communities longer as well. Care to try again or are you just stuck in your ignorance trying to do a tit for tat?

What? Is McHale planning another Caledonia protest? And are you his Chief organizer Angie?

Where do you want to start? With the smelting of metals, the socialization of communities, evolution from hunter-gather to farming? What?

Precontact Europeans were not more advanced - another of the many myths you seem to rely upon but very far from the truth.

The Neutrals became adoptees of the Seneca Nations. Their remaining people, songs, culture and traditions were melded with the Seneca after the Jesuits and other settlers killed most of them off with their diseases.

Try again. Section 25 over rides Section 1. Maybe you need it presented in simpler terms. Sect 25 synopsis: Nothing contained in this Charter concerning other rights or freedoms can be used to reduce the natural rights of native people. The essence of Section 25 and Section 35 is that the rights of aboriginal pre-existed the rights of settlers and were expressly guaranteed to them by the Crown in an number of agreements and treaties, especially the Covenant Chain. Therefore the inclusion of aboriginal rights in the Charter was to exempt aboriginal people from Charter rights that would seem to diminish their rights. Aboriginal rights are inalienable and therefore beyond the limitations prescribed by colonial society.

Predictable drivel is all you have to offer?

You really have to get past the first sentence: 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and ( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15) Section 25 over-rules Section 1 limitations since no other rights contained within the Charter can diminish the rights described in Section 25.

Your training to kill, tends to bias your outlook on things. If I don't agree with you then automatically I become the enemy - someone to demonize and vilify. There is a reason that you do not see you opponents as friends in combat. When you go to take a hill you sure wouldn;t want to invite the guy in for tea first, right? The point is that this is always the way it has been. The British common folk were afraid of the natives when they got here because the Church told them the natives were uncivilized savages. The minor history was written by the common folk and they are full of myths and fear-based fantasy. The REAL history is located in the legal, military and archival records. The real history shows up in the good relations the British had with the Iroquois Confederacy and in the records of countless meetings where agreements were struck and allies made. The history of the Iroquois is presented very tactfully in Professor Dean Snow's "The Iroquois" and in Horatio Hale's "Hiawatha and the Iroquois - A Study in Anthropology" . As well the Jesuit Relations provide account after account of encounters with the Iroquois and none of them describe the out and out savagery you seem to believe the Iroquois employed. You see through a violent filter my friend where anything native is evil and lower class. Those token Indians that are with you are friends only because you see them as non-threatening and agreeable. However, I would bet that if they were to openly support what is happening at Six Nations or anywhere else you would quickly dismiss them as opposition. So you are a victim of your conditioning AND your ego. Neither one will allow you to do what any good debater does -that is research the subject, find what is valuable and what is not. Instead you dismiss because it is easier to to that than to admit that I might be right and that you know a lot less than you think you do on this subject. I've seen the same posturing from you on many a subject where you lose the battle but are determined to win the war by ignoring the obvious. You can chose anything you want and say anything you want. That neither makes it right or relevant to this discussion. But if you want to challenge the facts then you had better get reading and stop acting like a frigging baby everytime something comes along that challenges your 6th grade history. Wail away son. You aren't in the army and I'm not in combat with you. You lost this one long ago.

That's another of the many myths people subscribe to. Actually the "government" in Canada belongs to the Crown. It is a corporation with the authority to rule over the people in Canada. Voting is merely endorsing the person that the rich or influencial people in our communities have presented to us. We really don't have a choice, except not to vote.

McHale has threatened him as well. Toby just issued a challenge to McHale to release the letter to the public so everyone could see exactly what he is up to. Of course McHale won't because he has been trying to intimidate many people by frivolous lawsuits. When the public gets wind of his tactics there is no doubt he will be called on it. McHale is a liar and agitator. Who would want him in parliament?

I don't discount European sources at all ....~The Jesuit Relations contains some of the most extensive and compelling information on early First Nation contact. And no one with any scholarly intention use Wikipedia to refute an argument. The fact is that the Mitchell map 1757 was commissioned in support of British dominion over the Americas via the Royal Proclamation 1763 and so it provides the most accurate picture of the land holdings and settlements prior to the Kings Proclamation. Whether or not it exaggerates the Iroquois holdings is irrelevant to the legal and constitutional examination. The point is that the British recognized Iroquois territory at the time of the Royal Proclamation 1763 so Six Nations is legally entitled to claim territorial jurisdiction. The other point to be made is that since in 350 years the British nor Canada have never refuted that territorial jurisdiction in spite of the fact that they have attempted to to an end run around Six Nations' refusal to sell land off. There are a number of treaties that were made with the Mississauga and Algonquin that purportedly hand over all of southern Ontario. None of them are valid since the record shows that all of southern Ontario belonged to Six Nations at the time of the RP 1763. No where has Six Nations given up that right to jurisdiction or made a treaty to all joint management. Low and behold the Quebec Act 1774 confirms that the limit of British authority is limited to "... all the Territories, Islands. and Countries in North America. belonging to the Crown of Great Britain..." (settlements and territories assumed after the defeat of the French in N.A.) and that all other lands identified under the Royal Proclamation 1763 were still under the same rules - meaning the only the Crown could purchase land from the Indians and those purchases must be approved a meeting of all the people held for the purpose of selling land, by the Governor of the colonies. Fast forward to 1982, I have heard some say that the Charter began without the RP 1763 or aboriginal rights being included and that it was the Queen who insisted that there be some provision to protect the rights of Natives they had made agreements with. Whether or not this is true is not relevant since the RP 1763 was included and it puts the Charter requirement (retroactively) back to the original requirements. In order to declare that a certain parcel of land was surrendered, the burden is on the Crown to produce evidence of compliance with the RP 1763. In the negotiations at Six Nations the federal negotiators have refuse to produce this evidence. I would assume that they do not have it despite the fact that the British and early Canadian governments were meticulous record keepers. What we do have are a series of letters and memorandums sent to the Crown as refusals to the proposals that Six Nations had to sell the land and could not lease it. Despite all these recorded objections we find the British (through William Jarvis who was found to have been dirty) produce a general surrender of most of Six Nations Haldimand Tract in 1844 with 45 signatures of so-called Chiefs, half of whom were in the US when they were supposed to have signed the document. We also have the absence of a public meeting to which there is no record presented thus far, which sugests that the surrender was a fabrication. BTW Joseph Brant was not even alive at this time, so there is no way he could have "sold out Six Nations". What Brant did do is create a series of 21 year leases with the intention of having the settlers clear the lands for farming and in time would be assumed by Six Nations people. These leases were converted over the year to title without the required compliance with the rules under the RP 1763. As such all such claims that ownership title of Haldimand lands usurps their claim to ownership or jurisdiction is incorrect. Unless and untill the required documentation is produced by the government Six Nations have a right to use proprietary estoppel to stop development on any lands under claim. While this is not a court case (since the courts belong to Canada) the only way out of this dispute between our two nations is to negotiated in good faith. I suspect as well that since the federal negotiators have proven thus far that they are not acting in good faith, I would expect that Six nations patience will run out. It is almost a given that there will be more work and construction stoppages as Six Nations demands that we comply with our own law.

Nah. No one from Six Nations is targeting him. During a non-native protest of a smoke shop, he tried to push his way passed the OPP line while flapping his gums about two tier justice, blah blah blah. He got clobbered by a guy when McHale went nose to nose with a native women and pushed her to the ground. Such a manly gesture don't you think? Certainly the judge that banned McHale from Caledonia thought it was a cowardly violent act. And Angus baby, McHale hasn't had anymore affect on the issues at Caledonia than a whiny kid does when he takes his ball and goes home. After a while McHale even became annoying to those that supported him in the beginning and then quickly abandoned him. Like Toby Barret the local MPP, who recently stated in the media that McHale has tried to intimidate him into support his cause. I suppose a $25 million lawsuit kinda fits that bill, doncha think?

Ah you misguided soul. I was merely volleying back what was first deliver by you. Grow up child.

Ah the fundamental mistake that most people make: Taxes don't belong to us. Income taxes and sales taxes are removed before we receive our pay, or goods. If they were ours then we would have some say in how they were collected and where they could go. All taxes go to the government. Taxes are our contribution for being able to be Canadians. When wefare consists of a substantial cheque that can be a winfall for those who refuse to work then we can ask them to qualify. The majority of people on social assistance need to be there and a few deadbeats do not diminish that fact. My father was a social worker for decades and understood first hand that there is a need for a social safety net. And yes there are generations of families on social assistance that should NOT be there. However, it has nothing to do with their lack of desire to work and has everything to do with conditions in our society that make it more disgraceful to be the working poor than it is to accept a welfare cheque once you have been bitten.

As I was driving east on the 401 this morning a new sign replaced the one that used to say that 50% of Tyendinaga residents were without clean water. The new one makes a startling statement, as well. 3000 missing women in Canada - 80% of them are aboriginal! Understand that this is not some casual statistic. It is proof that 1. missing native women are a low priority for law enforcement 2. aboriginal women are over targeted for criminal acts and 3. all women are most likely to be forgotten by the system. This is a systemic problem that we need to address on all fronts.

Are you saying that the witch burnings, the dark ages and pedophilia never happened? You think they are lies? And of course you were never trained to kill in the armed forces, either.......

I've backed them up! You do know how to use Google don't you? Royal Proclamation 1763. Mitchell Map 1757 Quebec Act 1774. The Jesuit Relations. Maybe it is just that you are slow, but if you read these things instead of looking for irrelevancy then you might just learn something new. I see you have reverted back to Troll Status. Perhaps you should just ht the Ignore Button too and let the adults discuss this further.