charter.rights

Yes it does. In particular the settlements on Six Nations land was done strictly under Haudenosaunee Confederacy law, which provided for the use of land (to a plow's depth) and the harvesting of resources for personal use. It did not however, allow land to be removed from the territorial sovereignty (a foreign concept) or for the use of industry and commercial exploitation of the resources. In the case of squatting, the Crown prohibited settlement (i.e. squatting) on Indian lands through the Royal Proclamation and later through the very specific Haldimad Proclamation. These laws were squarely aimed at British subjects, which unexpectedly became a problem when the lingering French settlers in Upper Canada refused to submit to the British Crown. The result was the Quebec Act 1774. The only reason that these issues arise now is that the Crown prohibited (by law) lawyers from representing native people over land claims issues. That law was not repealed until 1957. Since then between obtaining research information, funding for claims and fighting government obfuscation and delays, native people are just emerging with the truth and facts. And as it turns out, not only is the law on their side, but the Crown is as well having entrenched aboriginal land rights and territorial sovereignty in those early documents, treaties and proclamations. And as the OP states this is still very much on the mind of the Crown, in the polishing of the chain ceremony that took place in Toronto a couple of weeks ago.

Fact is the pendulum of prejudice and inequity has not yet swung far enough in the direction of minorities. If it had there would be no need for quotas and affirmative action.

That is hardly accurate. The RCMP is pretty much still struggling with racism within its ranks. Discrimination finding against RCMP upheld RCMP officers sue force, allege racism These are not isolated cases....

I think we will find McGuinty smelling good out of this one and I suspect they will trace the corruption back to Harris...... McGuinty has been careful to remain transparent and respond to voters wishes. The repeal of the eco-fees and the urging the federal government to keep the provincial portion of the HST point of sale exemption for First Nations are records of a government that appears to be listening to the people. I suspect we'll be seeing an Ontario election in the not to distant future....

So here goes.... In addition to defending the Honour of the Crown, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that aboriginal land rights are a usufructary right. As such First Nations share the land, as they had long before first contact or colonial settlement. These sharing agreements are entrenched in a number of agreements and treaties both pre and post contact. So it is clear from the aboriginal position that land ownership was a foreign concept. However, to the uniformed lay person there is a myth that that ususfructary right is granted by the Crown. That is not the case and in fact legally the Crown's right clearly defined in the Royal Proclamation 1763 is also a usufruct. The problem for the Crown however, is that they recognized Six nations territorial sovereignty in the Royal Proclamation, the maps accompanying it and the Mitchell map 1757 went to great lengths to describe not only the boundaries of their territory but the limitations on set forth on colonial settlement. It puts the Crown in an awkward position in that they can not lay claim through eminent domain, or conquest when they fully recognized their detachment from such lands, and prescribed a single procedure to be followed in order to gain access to such lands. And if that wasn't enough, by certifying under Crown law that Six Nations had care and control over a specific territory, they recognized that under Crown law Six Nations was the owner and sunk their boat in trying to lay claim to land within Canada. As a recognized aboriginal usufruct, treaties then do not surrender land, but only limit the Treaty First Nations use of the land. It can't surrender what it does not own, nor can the Crown obtain what it recognizes as not belonging to the First Nation. Lastly, what is important to understand is that the settlement of "Six Nation's" Canada, post-proclamation was done under the pretext of the prevailing authority - Six Nations - which allowed settlement and use of land, but not removal from their territory. Thus governance in Upper Canada became then, and remains today sovereign only over the people, void of land and only a usufructary right with Six Nations holding the underlying aboriginal title.

Government isn't help ME....But then again I am not FN. As far as First Nations people go, their issues are not too far off of our own, compared to remote rural communities. Funny though that corporations and farmers received 5 times what First Nations receive and you don't take issue with that. It isn't you money anyway and if you were paying your share you might have something to complain about. Must be a closet Tory. You sure sound and act like Mr. Falange.

He would but he says it doesn't taste that good...

Right up your alley. Tell me another...is the government here to help me?

Me too...

or rights extended by the Charter...which means a Constitutional conference can't change the rights....

Funny enough the top law schools are teaching it, and the Supreme Court of Canada holds it as one of its highest principles. You are another one of the pathetic fantasy land characters Shwa mentions. Perhaps you are Tatoo? The Honour of First Nations – The Honour of the Crown The Unique Relationship of First Nations with the Crown David Arnot "The Supreme Court of Canada resurrected the notion of the Honour of the Crown in its landmark decision on Guerin v. R. S.C.C. 19849 where it first stated that the government has a fiduciary duty towards First Nations. By unanimously rebuking government privilege the court marked a milestone in restoring a system of law based on principles rather than persons. Defining “fiduciary duty of the Crown,” the court restored the concept of holding ministers to a standard of fairness that demands forethought as to what conduct lends credibility and honour to the Crown, instead of what conduct can be technically justified under the current law. The Supreme Court clearly rebuked the notion that a minister’s reasons to act can be defended on the grounds of political expediency. In Marshall No. 1, 1999, the Supreme Court outlined with clarity the principles that underlie the high standard of the Honour of the Crown as follows: This appeal puts to the test the principle, emphasized by the Supreme Court on several occasions, that the Honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealings with Aboriginal people. This is one of the principles of interpretation set forth in the Badger Case, Supreme Court of Canada. Interpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or Aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown. It is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfill its promises. No appearance of “sharp dealings” will be sanctioned. This principle that the Crown’s honour is at stake when the Crown enters into treaties with First Nations dates back at least to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 1895 in Ontario v. The Dominion of Canada and the Province of Quebec. In that decision Gwynne, J. dissenting, stated: “The terms and conditions expressed in treaty instruments that have to be performed by or on behalf of the Crown have always been regarded as involving a trust graciously assumed by the Crown to the fulfillment of which with the Indians, the fate and Honour of the Crown is pledged.”10 And the Crown lawyers are reading it: The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples The scope of the fiduciary concept was extended significantly in R. v. Sparrow (1990),(6) the Court’s first section 35 decision. Sparrow determined that: * the “general guiding principle” for section 35 is that “the Government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal peoples. The relationship between the Government and aboriginals is trust-like, rather than adversarial, and contemporary recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights must be defined in light of this historic relationship”; * "the honour of the Crown is at stake in dealings with aboriginal peoples.(7) The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginals must be the first consideration in determining whether the [infringing] legislation or action in question can be justified”; * “[t]he justificatory standard to be met may place a heavy burden on the Crown,” while inquiries such as whether the infringement has been minimal, whether fair compensation has been available, and whether the affected Aboriginal group has been consulted may also be included in the justification test.(8) You can't swim can you......

Sorry g_baby you'll have to speak up. I can't read you when you are on ignore.

I can assure you as well that the Honour of the Crown, the Silver Covenant Chain and the Two Row Wampum are at the beginning of every discussion between the Crown and Six Nations. Without those treaties, there would be no use for discussion.

Actually that is a nice myth, but totally incorrect. First Nations submit primarily because of one thing - money. The federal government pushes and shoves First Nation bands by withholding money for important services. They have attacked the AFN through the same kinds of funding shortfalls. Negotiation, law and consideration of aboriginal jurisprudence are how the courts settle native claims. The law set out by treaty and the Royal Proclamation are pretty thick law in most cases and the honour of the Crown requires that they respect the agreements they made. As First Nations develop their own revenue streams the federal government and their manipulation are becoming less significant and less able to control their actions. That is why the Canadian government is quick to use military or quasi military tactics against First Nations protests. If the native get too much money, then we have less of a chance that the outcomes of negotiations, and court cases will turn out in our favour.

It didn't. Understanding many of the historical phrases continued within, the Crown only offered protection - like a cloak surrounding the Indians - in exchange for peaceful co-existence. "You are in you boat, and we are in our canoe both on the same path but never interfering with each other." Quote from the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty And if we remember, the Crown could not in 1763 take absolute control of Canadians lands since there were still French settlers, Indians and wilderness that stood between them and any claims. The Quebec Act 1774 clarifies that intention as it identifies certain "Countries, Territories, and Islands in America," which it claims jurisdiction. It does not extend to Indian lands "not ceded to or purchased by us"

What is important to remember is that the lands north and west of the New England colonies were unimportant and somewhat hostile territories. In particular, we see a number of treaties occurring both before and after the RP1763 that seek safety and settlement in a westward and southern expansion in what is now the US. Identifying the northern regions as Indian Lands mitigated the possibility (that had occurred prior to the Treaty of Loggstown 1754) that the Indians would become upset and attack settlers in un-surrendered lands. Of course the minds of the British, the Iroquois controlled a vast region and so they treatied with them to keep subordinate Nations from attacking settlers. From my research, Six Nations brokered most of these deals and their friendly nature with the British through the Silver Covenant Chain 1701 gave the attention they needed to get the British to agree to protect those lands. While trying to interpret the RP language in today's terms is somewhat misleading to those who take a simplistic approach, the real meat and potatoes of the RP173 is that the Crown and Six Nations were steadfast allies both interested in much the same things...power and control. And what the British had in New England, the Iroquois also had in Indian land.

it appears you are more than a wee bit whole lot out of touch on this topic. I just had to fix this sentence....

Aboriginal rights are exempt from limitations of the Charter. But back to the OP. The Indian Act does contain many rights that were agreed upon during the Royal Proclamation 1763 and other treaties, while at the same time has been amended from time to time to attempt to abrogate those same existing rights. Those of us who interpret and test the Indian Act all know that if it were tested against the Charter, it would fail completely. That is one particular reason why no one (including the Crown) want to touch it. It would open an entire constitutional change which would strengthen aboriginal claims in almost every sector of society (land claims, health and social benefits, perpetual care, infrastructure funding etc. I would believe that if First Nations are consulted about becoming Canadian, then the Constitution would not only have to be amended, but the Indian Act filtered by the Charter BEFORE the Indian Act is repealed. If the Indian Act is repealed without first going through a Constitutional conference, I would suspect that Canada would be worse off, given that Charter right exemptions contained in Sect.25 and 35, are far broader, and more open to court interpretation, than the refinements of the Indian Act.

It won't happen primarily because it gives the government power over natives. The government can't "remove the distinction between aboriginals and everyone else." because it is a right entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The sun is shining through the trees....butterfly... Do you think there is such a thing as "a little bit insane"?

Insane people are incapable of recognizing their insanity....so yes...you are crazy...

Between the bumbino the little 'c' and the mooner they take "crazy" and "deluded" to most extreme - lock 'em up in a psyche ward - level. Maybe we should hand out free pacifiers. These whiners don't have a clue what we are really talking about and have invented all kinds of fantastic and pretty childish stories about what they "logically think" we are discussing. What morons to the nth degree. Hey moonie do you get that math?

Yup. I said "logic is a delusion". The point being that one can only evaluate "logically" based on the limited knowledge and prejudices one has collected to that point. You can throw all the scientific basis into it all you want. Your frame of reference is incomplete, and often incorrect. This thread is a perfect example of the the supposition, myths and false information that many "logically" try to evaluate the OP. To the deluded, everything seems logical. You cannot convince a crazy person of their craziness. Nor can you convince a logical person that their logic is deluded because there is no frame of reference where the logical person can separate himself from their own delusions. You can reason - weighing one thing against another, and you can come to a reasonable conclusion. However, unless one recognizes their fallacies and takes them into account, their conclusion will be deluded. Main Entry: de·lude Pronunciation: \di-ˈlüd, dē-\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): de·lud·ed; de·lud·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin deludere, from de- + ludere to play — more at ludicrous Date: 15th century 1 : to mislead the mind or judgment of : deceive, trick 2 obsolete a : frustrate, disappoint b : evade, elude Delusions are not deliberate. There are an inherent flaw in our psyche. Mindful logic and delusion are really the same things. So that isn't to say that logic and reason are not necessarily useful, but at best we insert our own wild imaginings into the final decisions. Just ask Moonbox as he has become the shining example about what happens when you do not acknowledge your logic is full of delusions. Thanks for that MB.... @Wild Bill. Go back through this thread and see who has been throwing insults and invectives around. One would almost think they were afraid of looking at their own flaws and in doing so have innocently revealed them.

And of course that puts Moonbox at the same intelligence level of Bryan. Life of Brian

Nope. Up until about 40 years ago it was illegal for lawyers to represent any First Nations. Then the government has a particular way of lying, when asked to provide information. Protests and lands claims ARE stopping corporations. Lands are not abandoned. Land claims are just now in the last 20 years being settled - some going to the Supreme Court of Canada and others being negotiated. But in the end all the claims will be dealt with. It is myth that Canada has any land. It doesn't. The land is under the right of First Nations, and as we have seen from the SCoC rulings, this right is a protected Charter right. Go find somewhere else to play child. This sandbox is not in your league.