charter.rights

Most Cons think that unions get in the way of personal achievement and wealth. In fact the opposite is true. Unions guarantee a minimum level of wealth, health and safety. In the public sector, many of the middle managers are also former union workers so unions do not stifle achievement either.....

No provision. The right to strike includes no snow plowing in the city. However, in the past Unions have agreed to keep plowing the essential main arteries in order to provide emergency services. However, municipal parking lots, side streets and laneways won't be plowed this winter if the outside workers go on strike or....more likely...there is a lockout by the city....

The outside workers are also responsible for sewer, water and roads. Imagine snow covered roads remaining unplowed, or a water main break that doesn't get fixed. Outside workers are important to the business of running a city.

It has already been settled. Six Nations gets DCE back. The provincial government is waiting until the dust settles (the $25 million payout to the residents and businesses of Caledonia) to make that announcement. Six Nation has also restarted the original lawsuit that included the Plank Road claim. The provincial government has already handed over the Burtch Tract as well as some lots that Six Nations has purchase to add to the reserve.

The one who simply trolls and doesn't add to the discussion is the one that loses. You left out Shonkwaia'tison...

Spare us the "Noble Indian's Friend" routine. It is old and used by racists to try to intimate they are not bigots or racists.. And obviously since this is YOUR contest you have to stay up late at night to try to invent arguments to counter my facts. Not only I am historian but I have been certified in many court cases as a professional witness and have an extensive knowledge of First Nation history and legal history. In my 20 years of research (REAL research) I have exposed the inconsistencies of British written history and the deliberate attempts during the Family Compact era at changing history and legal documents to make lazy historians like you think they have it all down. I'm here to tell you, you don't and you have been duped. Now run along and play with the children. You act like one, you might as well go play with them. You would be much more useful there than here.

You shouldn't 1. be invoking "I'm a historian" schtick if you are outside your level of expertise, and 2. You shouldn't be arguing with a historian, whose expertise is in the subject being discussed.

It never happened in the way that it was memorialized. Aside from you using racist language, it was the Family Compact that drastically altered history. Many of the old texts come from that era and many of the newer ones rely heavily on their references...which why you are in trouble by relying on texts and not doing the research yourself. I have spent the last 20 years doing research on the Indians of the Great Lakes. The Gros Ventre are just one of the many with similar stories. And yes the Wendat ("Huron" doesn't refer to the Wendat but was coined by the Jesuits to describe the people they encountered on the north side of Lake Ontario which just happened to be the Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga) were decimated by the disease that the Jesuits and Sulpicians brought to them. Of those that survived, nearly two thirds went with the Jesuits back to Quebec and the remainder fled into Michigan, being forced out by the increasing excursions of Iroquois hunters into the area. In 1656 the Iroquois struck a treaty called the Two Spoons One Bowl Wampum with the Mississauga from the north to share the land for hunting and fishing. The Iroquois had official control of the land previously occupied by the Wendat and by 1700 had started to repopulate the area. About the same time the Neutrals and the Tobacco were adopted into the Seneca Nation as was customary under the Iroquois Great Law. You really should stop relying on internet sources for your information. Like the limited resources you have admitted to, the internet is unreliable and dangerously mythical.

"...protection of the Crown..." Yes, but not likely in the way you are thinking.... That is the problem with amateurs reading historical documents. In British - Indian History, very little stands on its own. It is always linked to something else and history. The concept of "sovereign protection" arose out of the Howard Treaty (Treaty of Albany) 1684 with the Iroquois. Among other things, the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee, Six Nations) sought to prevent the Algonquin from coming down to the north to trade with the settlers, since the Iroquois controlled the trade among the Indians and the Algonquin were refusing to comply. In coming to the south, the Algonquin would be frequently harassing the Iroquois (and vice versa). By demanding protection, the British offer the Iroquois military force and weaponry to prevent the Algonquin from coming into Albany. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was built upon all the agreements from previous treaties as well as the Silver Covenant Chain (series of treaties still valid today) and the Iroquois were quick to point out the British failures at almost every opportunity. However, the Royal Proclamation protected all Indian lands from surrender or settlement, and did not give the British rights to any of it, outside of their 4 colonies. And no, Indians are not "citizens of this nation". THIS Nation didn't even exist either in concept or in application and the British were on record of having anything to do with it because of the hostile Indians inhabiting it. However, they won by default Quebec but the only significance of that was control of the St. Lawrence for movement of people and goods into New England / New York.

Like most Aboriginal people including the Hurons (Who were not the Hurons but the Wendat) in contact with Europeans the majority were wiped out by smallpox. Today they are part of the Blackfeet just as the remaining Neutrals and the Tobacco were adopted into the Iroquois Confederacy.

That is the kind of Hollywood myth that has invaded real history. I'm not surprised YOU can't tell the difference. Nube.

Oh you poor twisted soul. So this is a competition? You lose for knowing squat. If you are the kind of people teaching our young people, all I can say is Canada is doomed to boredom and delusion.

There, I fixed it for ya..... Who cares about your grandfather...it is just another of your many red herrings trying to dodge your fallacious attempts to argue history. Canada was not independent until after 1982, and "Indian" stuff is current, not "convoluted crap a couple of hundred years before we ever got here". Treaties with First Nations are as important as the International Treaties we have made with the US or Great Britain. If you count yourself Canadian then you better accept it. It is part of our Canadian heritage and legacy.

The Quebec Act had no affect on the Royal Proclamation 1763. The Quebec Act was targeted at French nationals living in Upper Canada, no one else. It refers only to land ceded to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris 1763 which the Royal Proclamation 1763 identified as a Colony of Great Britain. (Southern Ontario and Indian Lands did not "belong" to the Crown in 1774)

Do you really act so childish when a student challenges you? The Crowns were indivisible up until 1982. After that the Canadian Crown assumed the responsibilities of the Whole Crown.

Another huge myth. While there were disputes among different culture groups, mainly over hunting territory and resources, there was nothing nearly as brutal as what the Europeans had been doing to each other for eons. From torture for the fun of it, to Crusades to wars fought over the egos of Kings, the Europeans were a far more dastardly group than any First Nations pre-contact. Of course you probably got your information from Coles notes. That is about as legitimate as you have been.

Nope. You obviously don't understand the depth of the treaties. First Nations retained Aboriginal rights in the lands - to hunt, fish and harvest as they need on lands that had not been occupied. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, First Nations retain a sui generis title in the land. That is the reason why the SCoC held that First Nations had a right to be consulted BEFORE any further development that might interfere with their Aboriginal rights whether or not the government knew beforehand that Aboriginal people were concerned about the interference. And by the way you should learn to take anything you read on the subject with a grain of salt. Most of what you have presented here is myth and innuendo. Had you been a real scholar you would have checked out details of your myths long before you repeated them here.

This case was a challenge by the "Indian Association of Alberta" on the validity of repatriating the Constitution without consultation with Native people. It was properly addressed to the British High Court since they were the ones handing over the entire Constitution to Canada, and amending it to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The framers had conveniently left out the bulk of Aboriginal and treaty rights from the Charter and as I understand s35 was hastily added to soften the opposition. While this appeal was not successful because the High Court agreed that the Dominion of Canada has long before been given authority to deal with Indians, the case did confirm some very basic tenets of the Royal Proclamation 1763, confirmed by a number of references to Canadian Supreme Court cases. The case is useful in pointing out that when the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made, the British Crown and the Canada Crown were indivisible and any deal made with British Crown was automatically transferred as a responsibility to the Canadian Crown. What is important about the excerpt that you erroneously responded to by red herring fallacies, is that both courts concur about the same thing - The Royal Proclamation has long been recognized as a Magna Carta of Aboriginal rights. By prescription, the Charter includes those inalienable rights.

You have subscribed to 2 fundamental errors. The first is the old age problem. You ~think~ we know better than natives about how to "cure" their problem. The problem is that WE are their problem is if we just stopped meddling in their affairs, they might eventually be able to sort it all out. The second fallacy is that you assume that Canadian society would be an upgrade for Aboriginal people. I would disagree that it is. At best it would simply be a lateral move, trading problems of isolation and the residential school legacy for a worldview that condones violence as a means to an end, and for lack of support for our own children, alcoholism and substance abuse that is rampant not only in our poorest sectors but throughout the professions and upper class. We are in a society where all of our institutions are failing, and WE don't know the solutions to that. In reality First Nations are casualties of our own failed empires. It we get rid of the scum of our societies it won't be long before First Nations benefit as well. The REAL problem is ~thinking~ the victims are to blame for their own failures.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 became the basis for all Aboriginal rights recognized by the Crown. Lord Denning,R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court, January 1982

You owe Bambino a bottle of rum.

S.25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Royal Proclamation 1763 is current law.

Incorrect. And his name is Joseph BRANT, NOT BRANDT. He was Mohawk, not German. The Silver Covenant Chain treaties started about 1686, and continued on up until the Royal Proclamation 1763. The quest for land in the US was actually brokered through Six Nation / Haudenosaunee agents and negotiators. The Haldimand Proclamation was not a treaty that required the agreement of Six Nations, nor were the Haudenosaunee "refugees". The deal for land in Ontario to be set aside for Six Nations' exlcusive use was made before the Mohawks under Brant ever joined in the war. And in fact more than half of the Six Nations Confederacy remained in the US, while a number of families followed Joseph Brant and John Deseronto to their Ontario lands after the war. The Haldimand Proclamation was issued as a law for the settlers to get off the Six Nations land. It had no lawful effect on any member of Six Nations. Earlier, Six Nations and the British made a deal with the Mississauga to relocate back to the North Shore of Superior. They had previously been invited down into Southern Ontario by Six Nations under the Two Spoons One Bowl Treaty of 1656, signed at Taiaiagon (now Toronto). When they met with representatives of Six Nations and the British at Burlington in 1783 the Mississauga demanded gifts as was customary and Joseph Brant convinced Haldimand to pay a sum for the relocation of the Mississauga. History has been twisted to refer to that as the "Haldimand Purchase" however, under the Royal Proclamation 1763 any such surrender was legal unless it consisted of a public and formal signing of a treaty delivered by consensus of the full Mississauga Nation. That "surrender" never occurred. In the Mitchell Map 1757 it identifies that Six Nations had been in possession of all of Southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River for over 100 years. When they decided to come to the Haldimand Tract (as they had selected) they were merely traveling to their own land. It is noted on the map that the Mississauga became the 8th member of the Confederacy, although there is no written history I am aware of that confirms it. However, Mohawk oral history does talk about the adoption of the Mississauga into the Confederacy and there is a time where there are a number of blended family names between the two nations. In any case, Joseph Brant had no authority and by 1802 he was exiled to Burlington where he died in 1807.

I stand corrected. The case did go before the Ontario Court of Appeal. In this the Court of Appeal confirmed the test required to certify a valid surrender in the following: Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada 1. Did the surrender procedures set out in the Royal Proclamation have the force of law at the time of the sale to Cameron in 1839 and the subsequent letters patent in 1853? 2. Did the Chippewas surrender the disputed lands to the Crown? 3. If the lands were not surrendered, did the Chippewas nonetheless consent to or affirm the sale to Cameron? 4. Is the Chippewas’ claim barred by any statutory limitation periods? 5. In the absence of a surrender, is the Cameron patent void ab initio or is the remedy subject to the exercise of the court’s discretion? 6. Do the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence apply to bar the Chippewas’ claim to the disputed lands? 7. Does the equitable defence of good faith purchaser for value apply to defeat the Chippewas’ claim? If so, was the motions judge correct in finding that the defence of good faith purchaser for value was subject to an equitable sixty-year limitation period before it can operate to extinguish the Chippewas’ claim to the land? 8. If the Chippewas enjoy continuing and unextinguished rights in the disputed lands, should this court order that the Crown has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Chippewas? Sometimes it is not the outcome that creates precedence but the meat of the cases themselves. The Chippewas test became the defacto legal test for determining whether or not a valid surrender has taken place.

Nope. It is illegal under international law to assume ownership / citizenship of anyone. Giving citizenship to Indians does not mean Indians have to accept it. In fact most do not see themselves as Canadians and have no intention of becoming one. First Nations hold a "special" relationship with the Crown as allies, not citizens.