charter.rights

I would qualify that with "western humans" are greedy. There are lots of cultures in the world who are not greedy

That is absolutely false. The Royal Proclamation recognized and protected Indian Lands under the sovereignty (power and authority) of the Crown. There was no surrender on Indian Lands to the Crown, nor did they have the authority to claim it in the name of the King through conquest. That is the myth these big boys operate under. And if they don't know or understand something they are not beyond making it up to satisfy their myths and delusions.....they call that logic....

Smokes are running about $10-11 a bag.......

Under Six Nations law, individual settlers of land have certain rights which all homesteading, and earning a moderate income from the land, such as farming, or resource . However those occupation rights do not extend to corporations or to where mass destruction of the land or resources takes place. Settlers can use the land for their own benefit as long as they do not damage it.

Nah. We not fighting a tyranny for their sake, but only because the US thought it profitable to settle the middle east conflicts. We are attempting to fight a feudal society that has for most the history of the middle east, worked. If we can have a thread and decide what kind of government we would like, then why is there a need to interfere with someone else's government?

There is a difference between defending ourselves (and that is why we have and Minstry of DEFENSE, and a prepared armed forces) and declaring war just because our southern neighbour is weapon crazy. But declaring war on another country is a whole different kettle of fish. There is lots of time to declare war if it is really necessary and there is no reason that it couldn't be taken to the people directly for approval.

You do realize that potatoes are one of the many various vegetables that the natives in the Americas grew long before the rest of the world started eating them.....

The first one yes and the second one no. They are different. Going to war is a major decision, even if it is an ally.

Isn't funny that YOU of all people are obsessed with food and alcohol all the time. No wonder that car leans...and your not even going around a corner....

Of course. They had to take out the Iroquois Nationals first. Cheaters.

"...you mean "logical argument supported by sourced fact" Now there is that word again. Logic(al). It truly is nothing more than a delusional argument at best. His fact is trimmed like a fine 70's shag. I wouldn't waste much time with that one. He is so deluded that he'll start yelling at you because you don't fall for his bull. "...you mean "logical argument supported by sourced fact" There I fixed it for him. He had a small significant spelling error.

Not really. The regulation on the reserves comes under the Indian Act, but that does not give Canada sovereignty over the land itself. That is why reserves tend to do their own thing and follow their own laws. But we are not talking about reserves, because Six Nations territory (and all other Mohawk territories) are not reserves. They are the sovereign territories of Six Nations and so is all the adjoining land in southern Ontario. And back we go again to the Royal Proclamation 1763, because none of the land on which Six Nations tribes reside, have ever been surrendered. Under the Robinson-Huron and the Williams treaty the Mississauga and the Wendat surrendered their rights to some of it, but that does not remove the sovereignty of Six Nations, which was recognized at the Royal Proclamation 1763 and before. And guess what happened to the Mississauga of the New Credit. These were the guys that receontly won a settlement against the government for taking more land than they were willing to give up. They moved into sovereign Six Nations territory at the Grand and were given their own territory there, by none other than the Six Nations. Cute huh?

I do too. You, Smallc and Mr. Canada....although Mr. Canada's affliction dips into issues of violent porn, children and fascism.

On this subject, pretty much yes. However, I am not arrogant and if someone produces research I will take an honest look at it. However, in my years researching First Nations Constitutional law, there is very little that I have not turned the page on. But if you were not so lazy, perhaps there would be something interesting you could add instead of your uninformed opinions and sloppy one sentence rebuttals.

Throwing down links that contain one sentence out of context is not referencing. Your laziness is your enemy and it sinks you everytime. And it is only fruitless because in the end it does not support your claims.

Hey dude. Produce the proof, not the conjecture. Give me references to refute my references and I will gladly be all over them. I have studied this for about 20 years and have consulted with many other scholars on the interpretations and content. The government would have you believe all the myths they are telling you. But the facts say otherwise. But then again...maybe you are like Smallc and are too lazy to look it up.

You have never provided any proof otherwise son I guess you are suggesting you are not worth your own effort.

Of course a lame response to a very pertinent point. You don't have any proof so you spew a silly challenge.

So perhaps you being a scholar and all you could answer the conundrum provided by the Royal Proclamation 1763. If the natives were taken over by some declaration of the foreign King, why would that same King prescribe into law that no one could use the land unless it had first been surrendered to the The Crown? And why would the Supreme Court of Canada provide that no surrender could be recognized unless it was done according to a prescribed process, reinforced in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada? You see the answer is contained in the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty, which provided for a recognition that two nations were each in their own boat traveling in the same direction and never crossing paths and bound like a chain with many links and with strength. Maybe you are smarter than me....but I suspect you are just being sophomoric in your rebuttal.

Nope. Protection and the use of the Crown's sovereignty to prevent its subjects by law from interfering with, purchasing or settling on Indian lands. This is supported by a long list of treaties both before and after the RP1763 which attempt to do the same thing and reinforce the RP1763. The British recognized Six Nations and other tribes of Indians as being independent and separate nations. Certainly if they believed otherwise there would be no need to require a surrender. Nations do not make treaties with itself.

NO it doesn't. It says : "...to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians..." To reserve under the power of Sovereignty, To reserve under our protection, To reserve under our Dominion, This was set out in accordance with the Silver Covenant Chain, not to steal land from the Sovereign Six Nation Territory, but to use the power of the Crown to prohibit, restrict and remove settlers and squatters from the land. As mentioned in a a number of previous treaties, Six Nations had been complain about encroachment, and the British set aside "Indian Lands" so that no encroachment would take place.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is protected under the Charter...... In fact treaty law before confederation is pretty much binding on Canada since it provides for the settlement of colonies, only with the permission of First Nations. If we were to void a pre-confederation treaty we would be voiding ourselves as a nation.

They are in the process of updating the Haudenosaunee passports with a chip, but have been disagreeing over the looks of them.

From what I understand one requires a wide screen TV to view it.

If I remember correctly, Mr.Falange had suggested he was considering running for the Conservative party in the next election but was rejected due to his background. Maybe he has taken up a new cause in violent pornography. Just what the world needs a violent porn-loving fascist.