charter.rights

No. There has never been a time or circumstance where any First Nation has capitulated to Canada, or applied for citizenship. They have a unique nation to nation relationship with the Crown.

NO. They are NOt "facts". They are myths perpetrated by the Family Compact with the intention of trying to claim all of Canada was unoccupied at the time the British arrived. Check out the Mitchell Map 1757. It clearly shows that Six Nations was in control of Southern Ontario for at least a hundred years prior. Before that they had continuous occupation of the north shores of the St. Lawrence, and Lakes Ontario and Erie for about 100 miles northward (where Hwy 7 runs through Ontario today). Archaeology of the North shores has shown that Six Nations have been in Southern Ontario including where the Haldimand Tract is today, since about 750BP. It is likely they will find earlier dates since many archaeologists has stopped looking because they believed the Hauedenosaunee only came here after the tract was granted. The Haldimand Tract was NOT given to Six Nations. It was their land at the time, and the British and Six Nations made a deal with the Mississauga to relocate them back to the North Shore of Superior for some cash, in order that Six Nations would have the land exclusively. Victor Conrad a well known geographer has Six Nations occupying the Haldimand / Brantford area in a number of villages at about 1400AD. Settlers and squatters were also ordered off the land. However, the British failed to uphold their demands and many settlers continued to stay on the land despite the persistent grievances and protests of Six Nations. Joseph Brant was nothing more than a "Pine Tree Chief", his name hung around his neck. After he entered the Six Nations into the war on the British side - an act that was against the consensus of the Confederacy Council who had voted to remain neutral - he was deposed and had no authority to speak on behalf of the Six Nations. Under the Haudenosaunee law he could not be stripped of his title until death but he was sanctioned by the Council and no one was to give him the time of day. The British refused to acknowledge his removal and continued to try to make deals with him. However, the Confederacy Council had over time written to the Governor General to inform them of his removal and refused to abide by any deals the British made with him. That is why there is ambiguity over the land leases that Brant offered to settlers. They were never official, and Brant had no authority to grant them or to sell land. All of which brings us back to to the importance of the Royal Proclamation 1763. The British had ruled that no land could be settled or purchased without a proper surrender having taken place first. They knew the protocol required by Six Nations since they had been making treaties with them since the early 1500's. None of the purported surrenders around the Haldimand, or in Southern Ontario followed that law, or the requirements of the Royal Proclamation. And according to the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, no surrenders or purchases are valid.

The Haudenosaunee passport WAS accepted by the US until after the Secure passports were initiated. For that reason the US declined the Haudenosaunee passport just LAST YEAR. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council is producing another passport that will meet the Homeland Security requirements and has their assurance it will be able to be used once they meet the specifications. As far as your quote goes, you need to learn how to properly read those documents. Despite your simplistic assertion, the Royal Proclamation 1763 did not establish "control over North America". In fact it did little more than create 4 colonies limited to Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada, a small strip of land up the east coast of the continental USA and the island of Grenada. Had the French not surrendered in the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Quebec would have also been excluded. And while it declared the four colonies were under Great Britain's control it still recognized lands within the colonies that had not been surrendered as the sole title of "the Indians". It had no application west of the Allegheny River except to recognize it was all Indian lands that were prohibited to settlement. Although it is not a treaty per se, the Royal Proclamation 1763 was the result of an ultimatum sent to the British during negotiations for land under the Treaty of Loggstown 1759 where Six Nations informed the British that any settlement beyond the Allegheny would be met with war on the frontier. This was a serious threat to the settlement of the west and the British heeded the warning by prescribing the Proclamation as a measure to stop land barons for grabbing land, and cheating to get it. It prescribed that only the Crown could negotiate for land and prohibited settlement unless a surrender was obtained first. Of course this is where Six Nations still holds all the cards since the Supreme Court has recognized that official surrenders were mandatory, and without them the Indians held a plenum dominium title to the land. Since Southern Ontario was never surrendered by Six Nations (they have held title since before 1656) the land still belongs to Six Nations. While the Court has held that land cannot be expropriated to settle these types of claims, it has order the government to pay the far value (explained previously). That means for Southern Ontario by using the Supreme Court's methods of determining fair value, it is worth over $78 trillion giver or take a trillion. So before your make another silly juvenile mistake, take the time to thoroughly read and understand the Proclamation and not some whispering that often hides behind the racist intentions of others.

The Haudenosaunee are the Six Nations - the Crowns long standing allies. Their passport has been accepted in 30 countries around the world. The Lakota Bank is issuing "currency". It is legal tender within many First Nations and is backed by their ownership of silver. It is a token. You really should get out more. The Royal Proclamation 1763 is the legal instrument that recognizes all Aboriginal rights - including self government - in Canada. Without it there would be no Canada. For someone who claims to teach you are a blatant failure at the first rule. KNow what you are teaching. You don't know history and should be expelled for claiming to teach it.

You were just given the cites that prove that Natives do not commit 80% of the crime but are incarcerate far more than non-natives for the SAME crimes. Repeating your same prejudices over and over again won't make them come true.

You might want to do more research, rather than relying upon your collection of prejudices to make statements... "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein The Haudenosaunee Passport has been used to travel in about 30 countries all over the world, including the US and Britain which only rejected it last year because it did not contain the secure information required under the new Secure Passport requirements of Home land Security. The Lakota Republic in the US issues its own silver backed currency. http://freelakotabank.com/currency.php First Nations are sovereign nations and no where in history have they ever capitulated or applied for citizenship under Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled that First Nations are entitled to be self-governing since that was (and is) one of the guarantees under the Royal Proclamation 1763. The government of Canada has no say in what self-government means. However, I can assure you few First Nations will ever accept municipal status. It is only a matter of time where their economic development provides all the capital they need to fight the attempts to keep them subservient to the government. In fact the big tobacco challenge in the west is the first major push in the last 50 years to assert federal status over provinces. As federally licensed manufacturers trading "nation to nation" (guaranteed under Supreme Court Mitchell v. MNR) Rainbow tobacco of Kahnawake has the capital to challenge the provinces by supplying western First Nations with tax free cigarettes for resale. The Haudenosaunee are sovereign and last year the Queen officially recognized their continued sovereignty by presenting them with gifts commemorating 300 years of the Silver Covenant Chain treaty as friends and allies of the Crown. I also understand from my sources close to Harper that he got an "elbow in the ribs" and was told to play nice with Six Nations as they hold a unique and special relationship with the Crown. Shortly after that Harper made 3 announcements favouring First Nations in an attempt to appear like he was trying to be helpful. So your opinion is about a useful as a doorknob that refuses to turn. You can't be further from reality.

As governments they would be entitled to royalties on resources and development on their traditional lands. However, don't hold your breath. The federal government is trying to obtain self-government agreements which essentially place the First Nations within the legislative authorities of the provincial governments. First Nations see themselves as autonomous nations with status and legislative authority at least that of provinces, an in some cases (as in Six Nations) in the same capacity as the federal government. This dispute is often central to the failures of any land claims or resource revenue sharing negotiations. The federal government runs by policy that is contrary to the rights of Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people will not give up rights they have preserved for thousands of years.

No. I disagree and so does the Supreme Court.... "“Generous” rules of interpretation should not be confused with a vague sense of after-the-fact largesse..." Oral history like historical evidence is to be "tested" according to some very specific rules laid out by the Supreme Court. One band, one Chief cannot just put his oral evidence before the court and have it accepted without qualification. The tests not only include having oral opinions coming from multiple sources, but is the commonality between versions, plus the existence of a provable existing traditional practice often recorded in early British historical accounts that certifies as substantial evidence. Thus in the cited case, R. v. Marshall "....the Court’s obligation is to “choose from among the various possible interpretations of the common intention [at the time the treaty was made] the one which best reconciles” the Mi’kmaq interests and those of the British Crown...

Nope. It won't change. The Judiciary is one of the three divisions of government and cannot be over-ruled by the other two. While Parliament can attempt to change the law, it must still be in conformance with the Constitution, and where Aboriginal rights are concerned consistent the Honour of the Crown. The reality is that the Royal Proclamation 1763 set out rules to deal with Indians, and those rules were violated in making treaties. In the course of common law that would invalidate the agreements if the concessions were fraudulently obtained and illegally conducted. However, the Supreme Court has salvaged the treaties by requiring that there must be a reconciliation between what benefits the Crown received and what benefits the Indians received. Again under common law principles unjust enrichment is not permitted under any agreement. However, keep in mind that treaties do not fall under common law principles exclusively. Just as the Court has determined that Aboriginal rights retained under the treaties represents a sui generis title to land, treaty law must be consistent with Aboriginal law principles as well. That is why the Royal Proclamation 1763 gave the Indians the absolute and exclusive decision-making power for land surrenders. Many of the negotiators and agents of the Crown violated those rules and the Supreme Court clarified the required process in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada by setting out the rules for legitimate surrender. Those rules were an attempt to reconcile the laws of First Nations (the Chippewas) with those of the Crown. It isn't horrible law as you imagine. It is a necessary recognition that Aboriginal rights are not to be trod upon by the Crown, or by treaties that in written form favoured Canada. It recognizes the unique and ubiquitous nature of Aboriginal law concerning the making of treaties, which they had been making for centuries before first arrival. Finally it acknowledges that the Crown has always recognized rights of Aboriginal people as a plenum dominium until they willingly offered them up. As Canada has evolved we have ignored those rights and attempted to eradicate Aboriginal people as distinct and separate and steal their land and resources, something the framers of early law foresaw, and used the Royal Proclamation 1763 as an instrument to protect.

His inmates are likely unimpressed.

Bull. You were NOT at the trial nor privy to disclosure. You best i listening to biased media looking for sound bytes.

Not at all. R. v. Marshall 1999

That's YOUR problem. You aren't at the trial, nor are you aware of all the facts. That's why we don't try cases in the media. You focused on the sensational and ignored the boring facts and evidence.

Look up the Family Compact. While many believe it disbanded around 1840, in fact it existed long after Confederation and into the early 1900s. Sir John A. McDonald was a founding member, a Victorian, and a lawless punk. And obviously you aren't educated enough about history to teach others. Give yourself a failing grade.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court has stated that the Royal Proclamation 1763 is in effect the rule of all treaty negotiations. Again, in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada they ruled that the Proclamation rules must have been followed, and where they were not, the surrender in invalid. The Proclamation is the Supreme Law of Canada where in concerns our obligation to protecting Aboriginal rights. Obviously you are the one denying reality.

You have to read the Supreme Court rulings that have defined the government's fiduciary responsibilities to get a clearer picture. The text of treaties is misleading and incomplete. The British and its successive governments set up the Royal Proclamation 1763 as a legal instrument to guard the nation to nation agreements they had with the Indians (primarily Six Nations through the Silver Covenant Chain agreements). The Canadian numbered treaties violated that legal protection and are still open to challenge in the courts. The Courts have held that not only did the treaties and framers deliberately leave promises out, the negotiation and settlement of the treaties did not follow the requirements of the Proclamation 1763 as required by law. In the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, the courts set of a test to validate treaties and agreements. Most of the numbered treaties (in text) on first glance do not meet this test. Most of the history available between the early 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s was altered by the Family Compact Movement to reflect the legitimacy of their illegal actions. So you must take the numbered treaties and the interpretation with a grain of salt. In actual fact as the courts have demonstrated they mean a lot more that we are led to believe they mean. Winning land and treaty rights back in court is a full time job and the government in truth and under the fact of evidence have very little to go on.

The burning of the Parliament Buildings 1849 While violence is not to be condoned, rebellion has very much been a significant part of our history in Canada. Events such as the Upper Canada Rebellion 1838-39, the north West Rebellion 1885, and the Lower Canada Rebellion 1849 play pivotal roles in the evolution of Canada and its governments. However, protest - including occupations and blockades - have been the backbone of change in Canada over the years from women's rights to gay and lesbian rights, from the Winnipeg General Strike to the Occupy movement Canada has been about protest and change through it. As far as Natives go, almost every protest they have engaged in whether they became violent or not, were intended as peaceful objections to government policies and laws, and for the most part have been highly successful. The re-emergence of protest and occupation as a means to effect change seems to have occurred as a test in 1968 when the Seaway Bridge was closed in Akwesasne by the Mohawks protesting duties on goods coming across the border. It continued through the 1980s with more protests over various issues. Most times the government retreated from its policies. In 1990 the Kanehsatake protests over the clearing of a burial ground forest as a golf club expansion in Oka came to the forefront with 78 days of protest and occupation that turned violent when the Mayor of Oka called in the Surete du Quebec to take down the barricades sitting on contentious Mohawk lands. At the end of the that protest the Mohawks ended up with the land back and no expansion was permitted. In 1995 there was the Gustafsen Lake protests over rights issues on unceded land, then Ipperwash, Burnt Church and Caledonia. As well as other smaller but effective protests throughout Canada by Native people. The end result has been success for Native people, in changing the government, obtain contentious land back or successfully getting the Courts to recognize aboriginal and treaty rights. The Occupy Movement has included solidarity with Aboriginal people across Canada. It was successful in raising the attention and discussion of all Canadians on a variety of issues and since this is an on-going movement its further success will be determined. However, being rooted in fairness and supportive of constitutional rights, the Occupy Movement is part of the future of Aboriginal protests, and will no doubt effect change. True rebellion originates in the minds of those whom are slighted by the failure of government to protect their collective rights. It grows when others are convinced of inequity and decide they want massive change. Perhaps it is time for us to burn down the Parliament buildings once again figuratively speaking, and take back government and the House of Commons for the benefit of all the people. First Nations have legitimate legal grievances and in that they are not alone.

There doesn't need to be an end game. The treaties under which we settled and developed land was to provided services and support as long as "the sun shines and grass grows". In other words, that is forever.

Right. Blame the increase in EI and CPP premiums on the Liberals. It is just like a Conservative to shirk responsibility....

There are other ways to conduct a revolution other than through violence, even though violence creates direct and effective reaction. Protests, occupations and blockades have fro the most part been non-violent events, yet highly revolutionary and highly effective. There are other activities that Native people haven't yet employed that will cause government inaction to turn into action. Our collective sympathy towards or against Natives is irrelevant in their revolution. In fact our collective anger and vocal concern is counted on as fodder for change. The government cannot react to protest, occupation and blockades and continue to ignore Aboriginal or treaty rights. Even the standard police response of charging people with mischief has become a no brainer. They know that it will get thrown out once it gets to court because the right to protest, especially over inequity or failures to consult and accommodate trump their silly charges. The police have been reluctant to get involved because they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Revolution is inevitable. Just be sure of the side you're on. It could be your last choice.

Because the government doesn't play fair (see Attawapiskat for example). In land claims negotiations the government has a take it or leave it approach. Six Nations is currently back in court over Plank Road claim and others since the government brought 5 years of negotiations to a standstill. Not only did they refuse to put in a negotiator with a mandate to solve the problem but they threw in a final offer (without even a serious primary offer) that was less than 1% of the value of the actual claim, without any explanation on how they arrived at the figure. The Supreme Court set out a formula for accessing the fair value of land in today's terms and the government refused to abide by it. This is going to get worse before it gets better. Economic disruption, occupations and loss of development all over the country will be the result of the government's non-conciliatory policy. Insisting that only cash payment will be the result and trying to dictate terms to First Nations while ignoring law of mandatory consultation is causing the problem not trying to solve it. Revolution is often the only way for government to change its position. When the entire electorate gets tired of being targets of political revolution, only then will the government be motivated to find resolution.

The solving of First Nation issues is not a negotiation. It is a dictatorship. See Attawapiskat for an example.

Ya. Its called a "pre-sentence" report.

He'll be out in 9 months.

R. v. Mitchell 1999 R. v. Marshall 2005 There you have it. ". . . when considering a treaty, a court must take into account the context in which the treaties were negotiated, concluded and committed to writing. The treaties, as written documents, recorded an agreement that had already been reached orally and they did not always record the full extent of the oral agreement..." The law as it is written.