charter.rights

Can't find the "Apology" thread that was on in the Fedreal Politics section. Did someone delete it? And why? It was a fairly respectful examination of the ramifications of the PM's apology.....

Your smugness is showing through and making your intelligence look transparent. The British did not "buy" the land from the Mississauga. They paid them to relocate back to the north shore of Superior. There weren't many here by that time anyway since they couldn't stand living anywhere near the settlers. Their prophesy had told them centuries earlier that the colonial disease would come and they were to flee (their original homelands thousands of years earlier, were in the Florida panhandle according to their oral history) , look for the abundant rice fields and not look back. Tuscaroa were never considered by the Confederacy to be the "sixth" nation, but were invited into the council as younger brothers to their Seneca who represent them in all business. The Cat Nation, Neutrals and Tobacco were represented in a similar way. It was the British that assumed they were "Six Nations" after the Tuscarora entered. The seventh nation was indeed added long before the Tuscaroras and there is oral record of there being 10 nations and more who were eventually incorporated under the Confederacy. The problem with record keeping is that the Great Law provided that once a nation was incorporated, they were no longer allowed to mention their nation of origin and they becamse their sponsoring nation. Understanding the way the Confederacy operated is key. They are not a nation but are Council comprised of many nations whose goal is to advance the peace. Their symbol of 5 bound arrows represents that in unity and strength, their alliances cannot be broken. Since the Confederacy controlled economic trade through-out North America (and evidence suggests even from South America to the north) the Confederacy alliance was an appealing organization for nations to willingly join. Those that didn't want to join would not have stood in their way for economic supremacy. So long as foreign nations were not a threat to the peace and the alliance, there was no conflict. The British knew who the trade masters were and could not gain access without also finding some alliance. For this they created the Convenant Chain - The Treaty of Good Will and Friendship which was a series of treaties not only with the Iroquois but with other nations who might have an interest in the resources. This allowed the British to be recognized as a partner and ally of the Iroquois so that they could explore and then reconcile the profits with the Iroquois. The Wendat tried to create the same relationship with the French. However, because they were limited in territory they could not control the lands north of Lake Ontario and eventually were driven east to Montreal when the Iroquois gained control of the Ottawa River - the French route to the west. Now you can laugh all you want, but as a simpleton all your laughter represents is an entrenchment in your ignorance. I would suggest that you get off the internet and do some solid research on the issue. The internet is ethereal and your dependence on it is as valuable as ship sailing in a fog. You've proven that already. Perhaps so as not to embarrass yourself further you should just move on. Like I said you are out of your league.

The Treaty of Utrecht has no bearing on the relationship of Six Nations to Great Britian. "The habitants of Canada and other subjects of France, will not manhandle the five nations in future or districts of Indian subjected in Great Britain" In fact, they sought guarantees that the French would not harass Six Nations for being allied with the British. Neither did they state that Six Nations was under their control, but rather confirmed that the French would not move into "Indian Lands" as the British needed access to the west and without Six Nations cooperation they could not gain an economic stronghold. Secondly, the Royal Proclamation 1762 was a direct result of Six Nations being in the face of Great Britian. The Iroquois saw that colonial settlement was a threat to their lands. The theme runs through the Convenant Chain, the Royal Proclamation and then the Haldimand Proclamation. It also continued after SN settled at Haldimand (and Quinte) as there were a number of delegations and letters to the Governor protesting occupations of not only the Haldimand and Quinte, but of encroachments in adjacent lands. Brant and Deseronto had secured an agreement that settlers would not move close to them. I have a copy of a 17th century account of the ceremony where the SN handed the land to the Mississauga and became one of the nations. (The Abenaki became the 7th nation before that.) This had been related to me by a number of Elders and Knowledge Keepers of the Cayuga and Mohawk as part of their oral history. Once the eye witness account (a courier du bois at Taiaigon) was sent to me it confirmed what I had been told earlier. Your web based references only support popular myths. You have to dig a lot further than that to get at the truth. In addition to all the web-based resources I have examined, I also have studied a number of archaeology reports along the north shores of Ontario and Erie that confirm that the Confederacy was in southern Ontario as early as the 13th century. Archaeologists are just beginning to re-examine sites since they had also succumbed to the myth that the Confederacy Iroquois were late-comers. I'm told by an archaeologist who completed a number of digs in S.Ontario that they expect to find earlier occupations since a number of the sites were occupied multiple times, and it is apparent from the settlement patterns and the estimated populations that they did not just arrive all at once. Accordingly they now believe that the settlements (some as large as 8000-10,000 people with some farming settlements with populations of 1000-1,500 supporting the larger one) might have started as camps from the south and turned into full villages a few centuries earlier. As well, I have access to lands claims documents (that go into the letters and agreements made with the British) that are not available on the web and have discussed at length with some of Six Nations and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte researchers. As well as a personal library full of information collected over the years on the history of the Iroquois. The Mitchell Map is just one of the many documents that comprise a total collection of information that examines the truth. I don't put weight on the Mitchell Map as a sole source of information but when it is put together with other information and confirmed by British records, it becomes an important piece of the puzzle. It is an indicator of the what the British were contemplating at the time. It also graphically demonstrates that the British had a basic respect for the Iroquois, since it did not declare sovereignty over the lands (when as you indicated was a slam dunk) but full recognized the extent that Six Nations claimed as their territory and 6 years later declare the lands off limits to all settlers.

Exactly. And that is why you are out of your league. The map was the precursor to the Royal Proclamation. It was commissioned on behalf of the King so they could reference the lands to be covered under the Proclamation. France and Britain were not in some legal dispute. They were in a battle for the resources and could have cared less for ownership of the land. Without the Confederacy as allies, the British never would have been able to displace the French in the Americas, and gain access to the riches.

Its old English.... for gawd's sake... Possession means "possession" in that they held sovereign possession over the territories "not having been ceded to or purchased by Us". You'll also note the the British confirm that the RC was to "protect" those nations from whatever, threat there might have been at the time. And since Six Nations was a formidable force, they had no need of military protection. The Iroquois only saw the settlers as a threat to the peace. BTW you need to go back to the whole reason for the British wanting to be here in the first place. They had no interest in territory or land. Their greed was based totally on securing access to the rich resources in the interior, and nothing more...at least until much later...

The archaeology of the northern shore of Great Lakes proves that the Confederacy Iroquois were in southern Ontario since at least the 1200's. The Mississaugas moved down to the are after a treaty was struck in Taiaigon (Toronto) in about 1665, where parts of the souther territory were handed to the Mississauga for care-taking. However, not all the villages were vacated and many Confederacy Iroquois were still here during the next 100 or so years, until the Confederacy return late in the 18th century. The Iroquois were never British subjects nor did they ever become British or Canadian subjects. The territory they held, shown in the Mitchell Map was clear evidence of the basis for the Royal Proclamation 1763, since all territories outside of the British colonies spotted along the St Lawrence and Lake Ontario were considered "Indian Lands" meaning Six Nations. The British knew they had to get in tight with Six Nations in order to harvest resources, since by this time Six Nations controlled all trade leaving the Great lakes, and the Ottawa River. The only way that could be done is if the British agreed to protect Six nations in Ontario from the same kind of expansion in New England, that was pushing the Confederacy westward and displacing them in their own homeland. Go look at the map again, since it clearly states that the Mississaugas were the 8th member of the Confederacy - look above the north shore of Superior. There were in fact many other nations that also joined the Confederacy. There was never and huge extermination of other nations which is nothing more than a popular myth. At the time there were also a number of other alliances and Confederacies that worked together. The evidence shows that Ontario belongs to Six Nations. Under the RC 1763, the British (and now Canada) must prove that there was a surrender. And believe it or not, the onus is not on Six Nations to prove it wasn't. It is on us, since we were the record keepers. That is the law.

I see...You prefer the "la la la la...I can't hear you....la la la" to historical fact? Just prior to the Royal Proclamation 1763 (which by the way is current law) the British mapped out what where "Indian Lands" were in order to be included in the Proclamation. Of course you didn't look at the map because it refutes your slimy opinions. Southern Ontario was Six Nations Territory in 1757 and the northern portion was held at least 100 years before the map was published. Citing an article from the racist site - CitizensofCalendonia only indicates that you might be in alliance with those racists.....Are you? Do you shave your head and wear a hoodie? Of course the RC 1763 REQUIRES us to negotiate and obtain a surrender directly from the Nation whose territory we sought to the Crown and no one else. Perhaps you can demonstrate where that surrender of Ontario ever took place, since the legal historical fact shows that S.Ontario belongs to Six Nations. I'd be interested in you showing where Six Nations surrender that land? The truth is that your opinion is empty of facts, now isn't it, and only your racist little heart perpetuates that ignorance in your Jurassic brain. The money from resources extracted form Six Nations partially belong to Six Nations. Money derived from other resources also belong to the nation whose territory they were extracted from. That is a another historical legal fact confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Charter IS the law. You don't have to like it. But you do have to abide by it. And since Ontario belongs to Six Nations, we cannot legally put a shovel in the ground until we have asked for their permission. Get over it. You are wrong again, bucko. And (just for good measure) you should know...that it will never be reduced to loess than it is today, but it will very likely be strengthened as Canadians recognized that more rights need to be protected form the tyranny of the majority.

First of all money derived from the resources on First Nations' land is not "white" money. It belongs to everyone - the owner of the resources, the owner of the lands and the processors of the resource. And yes it is all of Ontario: A Map of the British and French Dominions in North America with the Roads, Distances, Limits and Extent of the Settlements. You'll have to disable your pop-up blocker to see this map, known as the John Mitchell Map 1757 (published just six years before the Royal Proclamation 1763). Zoom your way in to the area around the Ottawa River and then follow the dashed line around the map. This shows the extent of the Six Nations Confederacy territory. It also identifies that the Mississauga became the 8th member of the league among other historical information. To date there has not been a treaty or a land cede for this land with the Confederacy. Thus according to law - the Royal Proclamation 1763 - all of Ontario is still Confederacy land. As well if you look around Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, you will see it identified as the "Northern Iroquois". These people were part of the Six Nations Confederacy who occupied this land as far back (archaeological evidence) as the 1200's. The Six Nations Confederacy were not newcomers to this land. They were continuous occupiers.

Nah. What you are referring to is Oshawa culture....also known as the 'shwa.

Ha ha ha. What a morass opinion. Are you sure you understand the English language? Iroquois law, culture and government survived in spite of residential schools, in spite of laws forbidding natives to practice it and in spite of the attempts to assimilate them. Many still speak their languages and their ceremonies exist WITHOUT money from the government. In fact you and I would not be here if not for the generosity of the Iroquois who agreed to peace treaties with our ancestors, rather than taking them on in a head to head war. The British knew when they came here that they could not eradicate the Iroquois. Their territory extended from where New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio stands today to as high as the Ottawa River, all of southern Ontario and all if Michigan when our ancestors first began to settle here. The Royal Proclamation 1763 recognized the Iroquois (among others) had dominion over this land and the people that inhabited it. Low and behold, the Iroquois are still giving the colonialists grief and will continue until we live up to the agreements our ancestors the British, and our government made with them. By law we are required to ask for their permission to occupy and use their land....which is all of Ontario.

Again, since the defendant must be considered to be innocent any mistake goes in his or her favour. No conviction can be issued if there was a mistake in the collection of evidence.

Native culture is not a subculture of the non-existent Canadian culture. It stands alone and apart.

Punishment cannot be meted if there is no conviction. A judge cannot convict if the evidence does not point to the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. When cops lie and fudge the evidence there is a reasonable doubt that the evidence is tainted. Thus a conviction isn't possible. However, if the evidence had been collected and handled in the proper way it is more likely a conviction would be issued. Maximum sentences are reserved for the most extreme cases. A guy going down a hill and exceeds the speed limit is much different than to hot wheelers racing down the street and killing an innocent child. Most cases call for minimums or median sentences - that is why they are handed out. Unfortunately, you would know that when you only get your information from the Toronto Sun and the National Enquirer.

Fudgin evidence to obtain a warrant that would not otherwise be granted is the same thing as lying.

Lying and fudging the facts do not ever justify the end. If a cop is willing t lie to a judge to get a warrant, then he is just as likely to lie about the evidence collected, or plant incriminating evidence in order to achieve his own end. That no way resembles justice any more than the dirty cops are judge and jury.

Those who are guilty of a crime should not be set free. But on the other hand those who are not guilty should never be imprisoned because of sloppy and illegal police work. In balancing one's right to fair and equal justice, occasionally some who are guilty of a crime do get set free. The judges are not to blame in these instances and the cops should be taking full responsibility for violating someone's Charter Rights by improperly searching or seizing their property. Justice is not served if the defendant has not been afforded clean and proper due process. If evidence is contaminated or invented it cannot be relied upon. If the police have a duty to follow a process in gathering evidence and making an arrest then it cannot be relied upon. Since guilt must be proven, anything that interferes with defendant's rights to be protected against unnecessary and illegal search and seizure, the evidence collected, or the statements taken cannot be used against them. Without clean evidence the defendant must be assumed to be not guilty, or must be given the benefit of the doubt when insufficient evidence is not available. You must be careful not to convict someone in the press. It is a poor communicator of the facts. Rather the Judge weighs out ALL the evidence, ALL the process and ALL the facts and then makes a determination of guilt. If one of those things is missing then he or she cannot make a proper determination. Frankly, the entire process sucks. However, it is the only thing we have that is working and the kinds of lynch mob mentality you would like to implement was outlawed hundreds of years ago. I personally believe that the process is broken beyond repair, but we haven't anything to date that can replace it fully and fairly. As a suggestion, we need to get rid of lawyers out of the process since they are incapable of looking out for anyone but themselves, in most situations. The law should be simple and fair enough for people to take the punishment on themselves, and where there are those who refuse, then their families or community should hold that right, but only after a fair and clean process has determined their guilt. Community Justice Forums serve in that capacity and , although they are limited in scope they have some successes in dealing with minor personal crimes. Perhaps something can blossom from that....

To us laymen, a fact IS a fact, a crime IS a crime and evidence IS evidence. That's simplistic and as a layman I resent your implications that we all have such a simple view of the justice system. Facts and evidence are only opinions and interpretations. Some facts and evidence must be must be weighed out giving some more strength and others less. Justice must be "clean". It can't be tainted or dirty or it becomes a police state. Just like there are different levels of evidence and fact, there are different levels of law. It isn't black and white AND the highest level of law - the Charter - trumps all lower forms when it is in violation. IMV the cops have become lazy and have on many occasions tried to circumvent the proper collection of evidence by inserting sloppy investigations and calling it evidence. In many cases they abuse the law, in order to try to gain evidence, or to harass the suspects. Yesterday on CBC Radio news it was announced that the police only get convictions on less than 1/3 of the people charged under Ontario's racing laws where they confiscate vehicles and licenses for 7 days. One of the OPP spokes person's said that it did not matter if they got a conviction or not, and that the effect they wanted was already realized long before they ever got to court. That is an admission that they aren't interested in due process - to which everyone is entitled - but prefer the harassment instead. No doubt this will become a Charter issue when the right person steps up to the plate. The racing law - by putting the power to determine guilt and conviction in the hands of the police - is unconstitutional and a violation of the suspect's Charter Rights. The RCMP are also using their sweeping "criminal gang" powers to stop anyone one they want anytime they want, without cause to search and seize anything "they" deem to be related to criminal gang activity. This has been used to stop the flow of contraband cigarettes, even though the importers are simple shop owners, not related to gangs. The cases rarely get to court where the charges can be heard in due process and instead the majority of the charges are dropped. The RCMP aren't interested in the crime - if it at all occurred - or justice and are only using their powers to illegally seize the cargo and the vehicles without cause and without warrant. This is an abuse the following: Legal Rights 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. .... 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; ( to be tried within a reasonable time; © not to be compelled to be a witness in a proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or International law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter if the suspect goes free so long as justice is first served clean.

The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran: On Freedom And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom." And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes. And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you. And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.

No it doesn't. It makes you a Canadian. Of course it still doesn't make you native because you come from a line of immigrants foreign to this land.

And that's another thing..... The people that I deal with are native - aboriginal - but they are not Canadians.

Yes yes yes. the old trap crap. He says he's "native" but no where near indigenous or aboriginal. Its a ruse...a con.... I work with native people on and off reserve in Ontario everyday. I am party to their intimate feelings and have learned a lot. I've been trusted with a number of things outsiders are kept away and sit in on many discussions about their future and their historical past. I am also a local historian and amateur archaeologist, having attended a number of digs and have helped classify some of the artifacts.

I'm not unclear at all. The concept of treaties were in existence long before contact with the first Dutch and British arrived in New England. In fact the Two Row treaty was made with the Dutch less than 60 years after they arrived because the Six Nations Confederacy, couldn't stand the newcomers and so made a deal with the Dutch to have them stay away. However, one of the treaties on record is the creation of the Confederacy Council. Neighbouring nations who were in conflict over territory decided to come together to agree to their territorial limits and put specially selected people in a Council to discuss all of the things that might have concern for them all. That agreement has been dated to be over 1000 years old. Thus the Confederacy is the oldest democracy on earth.

First trimester fetus' are not alive. They are part of the mother's body and she has the right to decide what to do with it. The argument is very much like the definition of what constitutes death. Currently we suggest that the loss of brain activity constitutes death, even though we know that machines can keep the boy "alive" for days...months...and possibly even years.... Since the definition of death has been modified a number of times over the last century, it is likely an open door for future definitions being modified. At the same time we must accept as a society that the fetus is not alive it is not conclusive proof of being unborn. It is merely the measure we currently use and therefore gives the woman the right to choose. However, once the fetus becomes a baby in the womb we must examine decisions of abortion and provide only legitimate reasons for doing so. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years we'll see this as a socially immoral act but until we redefine what constitutes life either in entering into or existing from, we are stuck with current definitions. The real argument against the Right to Life movement isn't about stopping abortions or whether or not a fetus is alive or not, but it is about the refusal by a limited but extreme conservative group forcing their views on others, with no room for compromise or discussion. Among those that are pro-choice there is always room for discussion about whether or not a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body.

Frankly, the Jewish issue claims are strong either with regard to "who was there first".... Moses colonized the lands and brought in massive changes. That gives Jews no more right to the area but favours the Palestines or the Egyptians who occupied the lands continuously while sharing it with the refugees. No doubt there were some disagreements over land in the Americas. However, there was little in the way of out and out warfare over land given that the kind of energy needed to sustain war over real estate devastated populations and imposed on scarce food caches. As well the land masses were so large it would be hard to control land through the use of armed occupation. Instead for the most part, nations came to agreements to either share the lands under dispute, or to mark the edge of territories and stay away. There are a number of treaties that go back 1000 years that hold these agreements to this day.

Six Nations have been here in Canada / Ontario for more than 1000 years. They were known as the Northern Iroquois and were Confederacy Nations of Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga. They expanded their territory in the early 1600's (over 100 years before the British arrived) to include areas as far north as the Ottawa River, Lake Nippissing, Lake Huron and all points south. No lands in Canada were won by the British or any other colonizer. You'll find that the legal possession of land is underwritten by the very treaties and agreements protected under the Royal Proclamation 1763. In doing so the Natives exercised their right to continuous possession even after the settlement began. Native society is communistic by nature..... Another incredible ignorant opinion devoid of the facts. Six Nations holds the longest running democracy on earth. Even today as liberal a society we believe we live in, we still haven't achieved the kind of participatory democracy that the Confederacy guarded when our forefathers first stepped off their boats. And just to make the fact complete, the British peasants who arrived here came from oppressive monarchies full of poor hygiene related diseases and poor hygiene habits that saw them bath but once a year and drink beer and wine because they had pissed and crapped in their drinking water so much it was polluted beyond recovery. Even a simple illness like scurvy might have killed them if not for the medicinal knowledge of First Nations. I would suggest that you read a book. Your thinking about this kind of stuff and forming ignorant opinions really doesn't make good discussion...even though it gives us tremendous entertainment value, laughing our asses off at you.