charter.rights

To change the term "Indian" would require a constitutional amendment. However, that does raise one other point. SCoC rulings pre-1982 - especially where they concern Native rights must be re-visited by the court and re-issued with the Charter Rights in mind. That is why post 1982 decisions are critical to the application of law, since they must consider Charter Rights as a component of their final determination. And as we see when native issues hit the SCoC the court is prone to upholding right that the government has matter-of-factly legislated against in the past. This would also include I believe, that striking down of the Indian Act as a racist document should any native wish to make the challenge.

Nah. It is gun-loving, law in their hands, road kill dining, right wing rednecks. Gang problems are not the primary source of problems in these major centres.

All agreements and proclamations were on the basis of a nation to nation relationship. This is recognized by the government already. "I know of no examples where either specific nation; or confederation or group thereof; raised and maintained continuous resistence to the alleged colonization; I admit that I haven't studied the subject deeply..." I'm glad that you have admitted your ignorance. Although I don't like using Wikipedia as a reference, I fear that anything more substantial would just confuse you: The Iroquois have a representative government known as the Grand Council. The Grand Council is the oldest governmental institution still maintaining its original form in North America. For those who can comprehend a little more: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth The Haudenosaunee, Iroquois or Six Nations never relinquished their government and even after their council at Six Nations of the Grand was deposed at gunpoint in the 1920's they still maintained their traditional government system. The Confederacy is the official negotiating body at the talks at Caledonia and recognized as the government representing the Six Nation people in lands claims negotiations. There would be neither a need, nor reason for Canada to take into account documents like the Royal Proclamation... The Royal Proclamation 1763 is entrenched in the Constitution Act 1982 and as such as is valid to the consideration of the government in negotiation as the Crown is. You cannot detach the law from the people. So in summary you are wrong on all counts. Keeping trying though. In all of this you have to be learning something.....even if you don't retain it long... what a druppy....

Right wing rednecks.

Dreamer. The government can't stop the money flow because: 1. We have a fiduciary responsibility for First Nations (at least until they are economically self-sufficient, and 2. We owe them trillions of dollars for taking and using their lands and resources without their consent. You can however, continue to dream and ask your MP anything you want. Unfortunately it won't make any difference. We are bound until our debts are paid. I will tell my native friends that they no longer have your support. I'm sure that between burping and farting they will give you one laugh and carry on with what they were doing. Your loss of support doesn't matter in the least and your voice on the matter is even less important them or the government.

You are confused. The burning of the electrical transformer wasn't done by any native, at least as far as anyone knows. The police don't have any suspects, or arrests in connection with that incident. And no towers were destroyed as a result of any protests. The towers were laying on the ground and merely pulled onto the road as a barricade. As part of the protest Ontario Power was prevented from erecting power lines across the reclaimed lands. After the barricades were pulled down, I believed the towers were simply returned to their original location on the reclaimed land. You are even more confused about support for Six Nations. The only distention lies and surrounds Caledonia. Outside of that area support is stronger today than it was 2 years ago and symapthy for native injustice is growing weekly. It gets better because now the provincial government is ramping up their commitment to find a resolution while at the same time trying to find a way to comply with the law. The announcement of the discussion on a development moratorium by the province is an indication that they support the negotiated settlement and are willing to go the distance. At the same time they are supporting native people across Ontario in their quest to fight the mining companies illegally exploring their lands. Now that they have realized that professional protestors / agitators like Gary McHale and Mark Vanderaas are frauds, and that the baby crocodile tears spilled by many Caledonians a year ago are based on racist fears, the real picture that is evolving is one of respect and consideration and legitimacy. So at the end of the day, people like you who only seem to want to whine about "poor me", ignoring the legal and moral reality of the Six Nations reclamations are really in the growing minority. Rarely do we even hear about Caledonia in the news anymore except when McHale is trying extort cash while trying to stifle free speech. Good thing too, because as a Canadian whose support of Six Nations has grown since the reclamation of the Douglas reek Estates, I find more people in agreement with me when we discuss the issues, than anyone who opposes my views. You really are in the minority, my friend and it is only an matter of time before education on native issues finds you all alone in your opinion. Disputes, reclamations and protest are the new methods for having grievances heard. You will find that the coming months will demonstrate that as First Nations across Canada push for economic disruptions in order to make the government do what they are legally obligated to do - stay off their land, consult and accommodate their interests.

Talk about back-peddling. Being at the top of the list for contributors wasn't in your mind "adequate". So now you are trying to cover a lie with dismissal? Is your ego really that big, or do have a reason for not wanting to admit you were completely wrong? Man I have never seen so much avoidance since Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Technically and practically you are absolutely 100% wrong that Muslims don't constribute to foreign aid AND that it is insufficient.

Rights are exercised by the people they benefit. First Nations have taken that approach recently and now fish and hunt in territories they were once told they could not. They have occupied and reclaimed lands that are theirs that we have squatted on. Their authority is inherent in their being aboriginal people. The SCoC is our law and requires us to comply. They have their own inherent laws and customs that the SCoC and the Charter says we cannot interfere with. Yet our history is filled with examples of where we forced our systems and laws on them and the only results we have harvested are failures. What I find amusing is that you are no different a thinker than the colonials who though they knew was was best for native people and despite the centuries of failures you still insist you know better. Even a goat has better sense.

Not at all. It is the reality of current development in most centres. Conservation authorities, health departments, transportation ministries and planning departments hold up developments all the time for their own reasons. Adding First nations to that list of required approvals is no big stretch AND more tha petty by-laws and provincial regulations, the requirement is the supreme law of Canada. And who says they will hold development hostage? For the most part First Nations want the same things that other communities want. Good planning principles, protection of our natural resources, economic benefit etc. Heck Six Nations has even published an official plan identifying areas for growth and other protected areas. Is it that hard to consult and accommodate those interests?

Aboriginal people are not Canadians, so their rights are as untouchable as the American's right under their Constitution. Clueless it appears is you middle name. You spend an awful lot of time in dreaming......The SCoC is a Crown institution and therefore subject to the underlying aboriginal rights.

Sure let's look at them: Lets look at all the years of licence exempt fishing and hunting for every native. Then deduct that from what is owed. Licensing of hunting and fishing began in Ontario as a voluntary licensing process. The payments were suppose to go to resource protection and re-stocking of our lakes and rivers. Then the fees were thrown into general revenues with no accountability. However, aboriginal people have an inherent right to hunt and fish anywhere they want. There are no fees required because their rights exceed the stupid regulations of Ontario. Nothing is owed. Except perhaps that we owe them for hunting in their territories. Nothing in our treaties ever gave us that right. Lets look at the billions a year spent on managing their affairs and concerns, and deduct that from what is owed. Our government took a paternal approach to native people, put them on reservations and took away their livelyhoods. We have a fiduciary responsibility for them since our continuous destruction of their hunting, fishing and agricultural lands is the cause of their burden on us. Again, nothing is owed since we took on the responsibility ourselves. Let's look at all the money generated from being allowed to run Casinos, and deduct that from what is owed. This one is laughable. The Casinos they were profiting from up to this last fall were totally on their lands and were their businesses. The government saw the winfall and attempted to steal their profits. In the fall of this year the provincial government of Ontario settled out of court, offering nearly 25% of all the revenues of all the provinces casinos in exchange for a hundred billion dollar lawsuit they were bound to lose. 75% of the revenues now benefit all of Ontarians. We got off lucky, and nothing is owed by First Nations. Let's look at the land value of the reserves they already have and deduct that from what is owed. All lands in Canada that haven't been legally ceded belong to First Nations. Without their consent we have been extracting resources, and developing lands and polluting lakes and rivers, with no compensation to the rightful owners. We have used stolen property and if we were to buy what we have used to legitimize the thefts, we would be in debt forever. You're right here. There is something owed. We owe First nations zillions of dollars. Let's look at the lack of income tax paid due to the fact natives were recieving a govt. handout, based on what the avg. native outside of a reserve is earning, and deduct that from what is owed. Income taxes were instituted in the Second World War to support the war effort as a temporary measure. At the time, native people were never considered human beings let alone allowed to vote, or hire lawyers to defend them against government intrusion. They were non-entities. You could not tax a non-entity any more than you could tax an idle dump truck. Today however, native industries and off-reserve natives contribute to the economy by war of income taxes and other taxes in as much proportion as we do. Even most people on reserve have jobs outside of their territories and while they are exempt from personal income tax, they still contribute to the economy of most adjoining towns, villages and cities. As it stands we are still holding their trust accounts that would amount into the trillions of dollars, the interest of which would more than cover all money put into INAC for programs and services and all other transfers to Band governments for their basic needs. So yes, again, we owe them big time. Let's look at every penny ever spent by this country to provide health, shelter, education and any other thing having to do with Natives, and deduct that from what is owed. Health care, education and housing funding on reserve is funded at less than 10% of what we fund ourselves in similar communities per capita. This money is already being deducted from the interest we owe them on their trust accounts. However, because we are not even paying the full interest on those accounts, we still owe them. The principle on these accounts nearly doubles every 10 years. By 2015 the Six Nations trust account will be worth over 2 trillion dollars, with an annual interest of 7 billion per year - that is almost the entire INAC budget that we owe them. Indian Affairs by the way is our invention and our responsibility. If we want we could just stop sucking 5 billion out of our taxes that go towards government salaries and programs that support Ottawa and give them the interest on their money instead. If we did that every native in Canada would have about $20,000 available for their use. That is a far cry from the $1600 the band receives on their behalf each year now....... Can you imagine how prosperous they could be with an extra $20,000 tax free in their pockets each year. I sense ingratitude from you. You should be grateful because the tables could have been turned and at the rate we are going may very well be turned around in our lifetimes. Legally we are not on stable ground as native people reassert the treaties and their inherent rights over the lands that we illegally occupy.

You obviously haven't read the Royal Proclamation 1763. You are digging yourself into a "dumb" hole. I would suggest that you know what you are talking about before you attempt to debate the points. As far as "It is also obvious, that very few rational people would find it fair to sell 90% of the country..." you are off on the wrong tract. Your property is not your own. You only hold title to it, which is a certificate of your possession. It does not mean that you own the land or can do anything you want with it. Aboriginal title however, is not based on the Crown's leasing scheme that we live under. It means that natives have a right to determine what you do to the land and prohibit you from doing it, just like the Crown, or the municipality. However, unlike the Crown aboriginal right even exceeds the Crown and essentially under our own laws they get to tell the government what is and is not acceptable on their lands. We can take a long process to try to no avail to amend the rights outlined in the Charter, but that will never diminish "rights" that are inherent rights since they exceed even the authority and rights granted under the Constitution. The only way to defer those inherent rights is to try to extinguish them through extermination. That has already been tried and failed in the genocidal policies of the past. And it would be highly unlikely that ordinary Canadians would stand for more genocide, having now to face the repercussions of residential schools and aboriginal societal problems. Plus it is highly unlikely that the rest of the world would stand by and let that type of scenario unfold. So we are stuck with those rights whether we agree with them or not.

Although the courts have trouble seeing it because they are limited by the Constitution, Aboriginal right exceeds even the Supreme Court's jurisdiction - especially Six Nations and other "loyal allies". In essence to the scheme of things it doesn't matter what the SCoC says because their land rights are about them, even. The only authority the SCoC has is by way of determining what the Constitution says and telling us what those rights entail from our perspective. They have no bearing on aboriginal right since it precedes Canadian authority, and British authority. Aboriginal rights are inherent. Once land is reclaimed such as in Caledonia, or Deseronto, or Ardoch or any other place, the onus is on the Crown to prove the land was ceded. Despite the government's first brash comments, the fact is they have despertely tried to prove the land was ceded and at least in Deseronto they have admitted it never was. That is where negotiations begin with the government's documents and not with the claim. The reclamations provide speedy access to those negotiations.

The shoe is on the other foot it seems and now as natives begin to reclaim their lands, it is us who must prove we have some right to the land through treaty or cede. We aren't doing very well. Aboriginal title is well documented since the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made. Now we must prove that land lawfully left their hands. If it didn't, then by default it is theirs.

Wrong. You keep saying that but in then end it is still wrong. Rights are "recognized" by the Charter. They are not afforded by it. While in theory the Charter has an amendment process, the practical aspect is that the revision process was left open to add to rights as they became recognized. A good example are the gay marriage issue. If it is the will of the majority then the right of gays to marry people of the same sex could be entrenched as a charter right. As it stands that is not necessary for today at least. You misunderstand the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not an act of Parliament. It is the foundation of this country and as such we cannot change our relationship with First Nations in respect of their rights without also destroying our own. No matter what you think, First Nations hold underlying title to all lands in NA. The Crown rests our title on top of and not exclusive of that aboriginal right. That is the way the laws were set up and exist today.

Hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! LOL :lol: What? Truth hurts?

It is absolutely correct. All lands not ceded are Indian Lands. That according to the Royal Proclamation 1763, affirmed by the Constitution Act 1984. It is are most current and relevant supreme law. Note that the Royal Proclamation was made for us and had/has no authority over First Nations. It was intended to stop progression west of the Great Lakes. Accordingly those that squatted on the land prohibited under the RP1763 can be removed by Crown authority. So when the government says that they will not take land from Canadians to settle lands claims, that isn't quite true. Under the RC1763 they are required to remove the occupants living on unceded lands and give it back to the Indians.

If the Chinese government was truly convinced that Communism was a viable and sustainable government system, they would have no trouble with open communication with the rest of the world, or protests that argue against public policy. However, that is the problem. Communism and the Chinese government is such an unstable regime that they cannot risk any other ideas in their citizenry. Therefore they have no choice but to live in a vacuum and to put down those who might want change. As it stands Tibet should be protected but the UN, even if China objects. The tenet of democracy is choice and the UN stands for democracy.

Wrong. Liberties can be removed when the government bullies say so. You have limited choices. That isn't the same thing as freedom.

Unfortunately Jerry you wasted all that time trying to come up with a rebuttal that you missed the points made in the previous points. let me summarize for you, since you seem to have skipped over them: 1. Natives were never "conquered or defeated" 2. Our tax dollars do not support natives. We owe them so much that we can't repay that any money they receive doesn't even pup a dent in the interest on the principle. 3. The "noble Indian" image of living off the land is a myth. Even though some still maintain and exercise those rights, the majority hold jobs and live in urban centres, paying taxes and building communities. Native people have always adapted to their environment and new tools that came through trade. If anything it is our society that is stuck on useless myths. Our country is build on lies. 4. The disputes have nothing to do "with the sins of our fathers" - another myth you seem to love. They are legal disputes that we are bound by constitutional law to correct and native right to land is a current issue that must be resolved for us to move forward. In the scheme of things they are right and we are wrong, legally speaking. That is why negotiation is the only way these things will be resolved. 5. Right now the white Anglo Saxon male is a minority in this country. The stodgy colonial "stick it to 'um" attitudes are dying away. As we know visible minorities are dominant in urban centres and many of them have come from oppressive regimes that actually have sympathy for First Nations issues. How do I know? Just go to any rally promoted the resolution of First Nations' issues. They are there in large numbers. So public opinion is on the rise, not only among the minority but among ordinary Canadians who believe in justice. 6. Six Nations receives less than 10% in federal transfers ($36 million in 2007) than municipalities receive from the provincial transfers per capita. That amounts to about $1600 per person to cover all the things we have in our cities, in addition to their health and education programs. The health transfer is about $230 per year. 7. Industries at Six Nations contributed $120 million in 2007 in excise taxes. If you do the math, they have paid more than 3 times what they contributed. If we could add up the income, sales and property taxes that native people pay living in the urban centres we would see that they contribute as much as we do towards INAC and government budgets. 8. Six Nations is owed over $1 trillion in a compounded interest trust the government holds on their behalf. The interest on that would be over $3 billion per year based on INAC interest rates. Since First Nations across Canada only receive about $3 billion a year collectively (out of that $8 billion INAC budget) it would appear that Six Nations - not us -are supporting all the First Nations. If you are going to chime in with some good discussion matter it would be appreciated. However, coming in just to spew vitriol is neither contributing to this discussion, or helping to teach you the truth. That much delusion should really be medicated.

Paying lip service in a politically correct way doesn't diminish your xenophobia towards the culture. The FACT that you display your relationships with certain people demonstrates to me that you are more interested in showing off your trophies than you are in finding out about the people, their culture and the real relationship they have with our government.

You haven't ever demonstrated that you were interested in facts since you are often loose with the truth yourself. Instead, I bet you are just pissed off at anything native and prefer to ridicule and troll than to actually engage in factual discussion. I have lots of opinions on the subject and an intimate knowledge of history and legal facts. I even have an opinion about you that involves cold water and an over-inflated ego that probably keeps you in your own corner at parties.

The lands "reserved" for the Indians under the Royal Proclamation 1763 as all the lands west of Georgian Bay and north of Upper and Lower Canada. So other than a few colonies that existed along the St Lawrence and Lake Ontario, the rest of the lands were off limits to settlers and colonists. Rightfully so since in 1757 the British complied a map showing Six Nations territory running north to the Ottawa River, west to the west side of Lake Huron, down through the Ohio Valley and upstate New York. And they were well aware that Six Nations had been there for over a hundred years before settlement began. The relationship between the Natives and the British was international and the British prohibited British subjects from purchasing (or swindling) land from the natives in order to protect the Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship / Two Row Wampum. All lands not ceded belong to the First Nations. That isn't just an opinion, it is a legal fact and the basis for all negotiations and treaties.

I read a lot and most of the texts are not available for the lazy armchair critics who want links for everything. I guess being razor sharp is much better than your dull thuggery. Just get over yourself already. If you don't like the discussion then move on but stop trying to troll and take it off topic. You do that a lot.

Wrong. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was re-affirmed in the Constitution Act 1982. It is not "history" but current and applicable law today. Treaties were never revised. Land rights are entrenched in the Constitution. All the written and oral agreements made 200 years ago still apply today. That is the law.