charter.rights

Wrong. Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution. You are wrong again. That is left to a Constitutional Conference that requires the consent of a minimum of 2/3 of the provinces holding at least 50% of the population of all the provinces in addition to the House and the Senate.

Maybe you should catch up. The Government cannot appeal the SCoC. They are the highest court in the land and their decisions are final. The SCoC "...that stated clearly the actions of Canadian officials contributed to the continued detention of a young person who had no access to legal counsel, was subjected to “improper treatment” through sleep deprivation, likely aided his upcoming criminal prosecution, and violated principles of fundamental justice." The Federal Court ruled last Monday that "that the government has seven days to come up with a list of remedies to its breach of Mr. Khadr’s constitutional rights.". The government announced yesterday that they will appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal on the deadline suggesting that the Federal Court overstepped its authority in interfering with foreign affairs. So YOU are wrong once again. If you are going to counter a discussion, at least look up the facts first.

You are still wrong. You might want to watch what happens over the Khadr case then, because the government has already been cited to have violated the rights of Omar Khadr, and are well on their way to be charged for contempt of court for not following the courts orders.

Wrong again. Check out this "...is a political association...." "...over a geographic area..." The definition you cited does not require a land occupation, only a association among people over a geographic area. You sir are the moron. You can't read, or comprehend, or understand that Canada has no land. So you either submit to the definition as I explained to you, or you accept that Canada is not sovereign. You can't have it both ways.

There is a very simple premise to native protest.... You might have noticed that the majority of protests occur on their own land (or on lands that are under claim). They are not targeting 'white man's' house. How racist of you to make such a comment. They are shutting down the use of their land, in an effort to get our government to live up to our agreements and obligations. When one finds themselves on disputed lands - such as those that rented cottages at Hope Bay, then they are not the victims. They should have done their due diligence and if they don't then they deserve what they get. In terms of protests zones, the same thing applies. Haldimand County was put on public notice of the DCE lands at Caledonia were on disputed territory. But the County approved the development and the builder went ahead regardless. And you want to blame the natives? They have a right of proprietary estoppel. That is the law and it was exercised accordingly. The after affects in Caledonia was brought upon the home owners by themselves, by trying to intervene in the dispute as if they had some right to their neighbour's property. The result was tit-for-tat. Go back to the reports on the Friday night rallies and see exactly who started the taunts and attacks....it is clearly recorded. So the point is Bill, your whining is all frivolous bunk. Get over it. The natives have every right to stop development or trains, or any other action on their land. The Royal Proclamation 1763 guarantees it.

Nope. That is "The Myth". The real Crown has no responsibility to the people. Try to answer Shwa'a question above and you'll find where the myth lies.

Nope. Wrong again. I'm talking about "the Honour of the Crown" as one part of the legal theory that has lead the SCoC into enforcing long-standing agreements against the interests of Canada. There are many more examples. "The People" of Canada hold absolutely no power, save and except voting if they feel like it. The Power, is the Crown and the Governor general is both the Head of State and the Commander of the Armed Forces. As long as the government is doing the right thing, there is no need to intervention...ie the Courts as "The Crown". A particular example is the on-going Omar Khadr saga. As recently as last week the Crown (aka the Federal Court) ordered the government to go get Khadr. Before that the Crown (aka the Supreme Court of Canada) ruled that the government had violated Khadr's rights by not reaching out to defend him. Now the government is attempting to make an appeal and it is likely going to have to face contempt of court charges if they do not do as they are ordered. The Crown holds all the power. So go back and answer Shwa's question. "Can the Crown sieze your real property, without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?" Your error in thinking will be corrected.

In most cases the independents belong to a party that is not recognized because they do not meet the criteria for a party. Then again the only real independents I have seen are after they are elected, after getting kicked out the party they were elected under. It is a moot point however, because if a riding elects an independent or fringe party they have no power to change the status quo. And more likely than not, they will be absorbed in the same self-serving corruption they are surrounded with.

Again, unfortunately a corrupt system corrupts its participants. We have seen many a politician go in with good intentions and come out stinking like the rest of them. Even Harper - the champion of fiscal restraint and change - fell into the same stinking trap. Using the treasury like it was his own money. Ignoring human rights. Defying parliamentary law and challenging the entire basis for the system aka the Crown. Harper is a stinking mess even though he boasted about being different.

Silly you. Take a look at who is still not complying with the treaties and agreements made over the last 300 years. It sure isn't the natives.

Unfortuntately, the Reform were rejected by Canadians and as it turns out they are just as corrupt and self serving as the rest of them....

Well no. The riding candidates are chosen and approved by the party, so more often than not, parties will not parachute anyone who raises a stink now and then, or thinks outside of their box.

You are out to lunch...still. Jurisprudence is the "theory(ies) of law" and can be picked out of the Supreme Court rulings by the series of decisions that have been made over the years. You don't understand that, I get it, but you are still wrong. The Crown is only represented by the Queen and the Governor General. The Courts hold a higher authority than the government or MPs. You understanding of the Crown is equally out to lunch. Go get an education.

That's why this thread on the Silver Covenant Chain, Treaty of Peace, Goodwill and Friendship 1710-2010 is an important educational lesson. Read the Royal Proclamation 1763, and then understand that the numbered treaties did not do what the early Victorians thought they would do - steal the land from native people. Rather the numbered treaties merely surrender some native rights to land, but not the land itself. As well, much of Canada has still not been surrendered and it cannot be claimed by Canada without a surrender complying with the RP1763 (so says the Supreme Court of Canada) Myths abound in Canada. Canada was formed as a protection against financial ruin by the US and against the threat of attack from the south. That was the original purpose of the BNA Act, and Canada was mere an "association / federation" of people with the same intent.

I have read it fully a number of times and fully understand its intent. Another non sequitir argument, No one was has claimed nor have I heard any First nation leader claim, that Canadians should become deposed of the use of land. However, Canada is not a nation of land but a nation of people that has no land base apart from the Crown agreements made with native peoples. We cannot separate our use of land under treaty or agreement and the perpetual care guaranteed by the Crown in return for that use. Your non sequitir again. I have never claimed that Canada is not a nation state. Just that Canada is a nation of people, without land. You should be married to Moonbox since you both appear to engage in tantric delusions, fallacies and myths.

Yes. You are wrong. In Canada the Queens authority is vested in "The Crown" - in parliament, MPs, its officers, the courts, lawyers, the armed forces and its captains etc. While HRM Queen Elizabeth does try to avoid the politics of Canada, and her Governor General is charged with overseeing Canadian Crown operations every Crown officer and institution is bound to adhere to her agreements and laws - including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So jurisprudence baffle you....another big word beyond your comprehension. Just for reference here is what Merrium Websters definition says: Main Entry: ju·ris·pru·dence Pronunciation: \ˌju̇r-əs-ˈprü-dən(t)s\ Function: noun Date: 1654 1 : the science or philosophy of law 2 a : a system or body of law b : the course of court decisions 3 : a department of law <medical jurisprudence> — ju·ris·pru·den·tial \-prü-ˈden(t)-shəl\ adjective — ju·ris·pru·den·tial·ly \-ˈden(t)-sh(ə-)lē\ adverb Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the concept that aboriginal rights trump other rights and restrictions, including domestic and common law. So you are wrong, once again.

You haven't read the treaties and agreements nor have you delved into the jurisprudence of First Nations constitutional law. That much is obvious. You see the agreements were not made with some ancient foreign government. They were made with the Crown, which is the same Crown responsible for our parliamentary system, the Courts, Armed Forces and other Crown corporations. You are a victim of your own myths. The presentation of the gifts from Queen (The Crown) demonstrate that those agreements and treaties are still valid, and the Queen recognizes it is in HRM best interests (and honour)to respect them today. In fact not only does the Queen still hold influence over the actions of government, but HRM was responsible for the inclusion of Section 25 in the Charter, ensuring their commitments and agreements made over the years with first nations would essentially remain intact. Actually what I am saying is that the Canadian court system is already awarding substantial awards in court cases. More importantly however, is that the government itself is negotiating even larger settlements, and is bound to negotiate most claims by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no way out of. The Law requires consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation of uses of land, and settlements for land and resources is continuing to be negotiated, anyway. Your claim about international history is incredulous. In fact Canada and the US are the lonely hold-outs on signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which by the way further strengthens the conclusions being reached by the Supreme Court of Canada. And Obama has indicated that the US may sign the declaration soon. So really, the international community is in support of aboriginal rights and settlements every bit as much as the Supreme Court has indicated in law.That makes you wrong again. Common law is trumped by constitutional law. And between Section 25 and 35 of the Charter, aboriginal people are exempt from any infringements imposed by domestic laws. Maybe you should re-read the charter. It is there in black and white. "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada...." Look up those big words I underscored for you. Canada's obligations to First Nations would indeed bankrupt the treasury. But that is why the government is obligated to negotiate in a different manner than they have been. The control over land and resources could be returned in part while perpetual care agreements incorporated into final agreements. The reality is the longer the delay the more it will cost but the Crown has indicated they must be settled. Another of your many non sequitir fallacy arguments. Dismissed. IF you believe in the rule of law then you better start digging through the thousands of settled court cases that define aboriginal law in Canada. So far native people are winning a good number of their provincial and federal Supreme Court appeals and new law is being written as we speak. But then again you aren't here to learn anything. You prefer your own delusions to facts. The rule of law is indeed intact in Canada and it favours settling claims with all aboriginal people...just as the Crown demands it.

No it is not. Canada is a nation without a land base. Really. All land has some First Nation encumbrance, whether it be treaty, harvesting rights or unceded. The Crown made agreements that cannot be undone without their approval and as such Canada has very little in terms of land. All Crown sovereignty is only over the people in Canada. That is a simple fact.

Nah. He's probably still sitting in front of his computer "editing" the tape to his own delight.....in the middle of the night....with the lights out... ;)

Incorrect. Merriam Webster Online Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty \-tē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural sov·er·eign·ties Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein Date: 14th century 1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it 2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : autonomy c : controlling influence 3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state And sovereign has a similar meaning Main Entry: 1sov·er·eign Variant(s): also sov·ran \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən, -vərn also ˈsə-\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Anglo-French soverein, from soverein, adjective Date: 13th century 1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter 2 : any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom Sovereignty is over people, not land.

Moonbox thinks his opinion is a great substitution for fact. He is a waste of time.

If you want quick approvals then prepare to have most things denied. Most developments are not cut and dried "make-an-application-and-get-approved" processes. Often times they are complex negotiations, based on studies, reports and professional opinions. There is engineering involved at every stage of the process and many agencies - power requirements to conservation to traffic - that must be consulted. Without all the regulations (you know "the laws") then we would have citizen protest after protest fighting developers and the money interests. How about we put up a wind turbine on your neighbours property. He is alright with it. You don't need to be consulted, by law. So let's see if you agree with it and support it...... The review of developments before construction and future uses cause damage to us or the environment is not something to be taken lightly. It the whole process takes 10 years then so be it. I certainly would not want the tiers of government to quickly approve that toll highway through my wetlands and farmland that developers care little about, without taking a long look at it first.

It absolutely makes sense if you reread it. "...the sovereignty of any one nation is over the people...." one statement "...it is the people who manage the lands on behalf of the nation..." another statement. No one said in this discussion or any other that Canadians would be displaced if there were land settlements. In essence our Ontario settlements are still on Haudenosaunee territory, who are not Canadians. Therefore we are living on Indians lands, even though we are still Canadian. That does not make us stateless. But it does mean that we are in violation of the Royal Proclamation 1763, and are infringing on their rights. Of course there is a case to be made for a portion of our taxes, and profits from resources being paid for them for the use of their land, but still we have property rights under Haudenosaunee law.

Are your talking about the real possibilities or just the perceived ones propagated through fear and manipulation of the masses to increase the consumption of corporations good and services? Keep your context focused in Canada too BTW.

You make a number of errors in your thinking. First of all the sovereignty of any one nation is over the people and it is the people who manage the lands on behalf of the nation. The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty was in part a recognition that the British Crown could not manage the land through its own resources, and in turn required the co-operation of many native nations to protect and manage the lands and resources. To that point at the time of the signing, the British had expanding colonies in the eastern US that was inter-populated with First Nations communities. The British knew that warring with the natives would not turn out well for the colonists. As well they did not have enough military forces to protect all the homesteaders. Their experience was that the Iroquois Confederacy not only was made up of 5 co-operating nations, but that Peace and Goodwill helped them enter into the territories of many other nations to hunt and fish and trade, with very little resistance or opposition. Fashioned after the Two Row Wampum (Or the Kahswenta),through the Silver Covenant Chain, the British sought to expand their co-operation in conjunction with the Iroquois Confederacy with other First Nations, for trade and security. Secondly and more importantly you make the most amateur mistake of generalizing First Nations into on homogeneous group. We are talking about a land base 5 times the size of Europe being managed or used by about 250 distinct nations but only sharing about 4 or 5 different languages. Co-operation between nations was a notion of survival, in as much as disputes that arose during lean times were over hunting grounds. However, here we are only essentially initially talking about early eastern US west to the Ohio valley, the Michigan Peninsula north to the north shore of Superior, Nippising east to Montreal and back to New York, being managed not only through British and Dutch colonial settlers, but through the Iroquois Confederacy (which by this time was expanded to include a number of nations adopted into the Confederacy) as well as French colonists and Metis people populating the northern wilderness. Through the co-operation of the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty the lands and resources were commonly managed for the benefit of all. Lastly, the Iroquois are hardly "stateless" since the lands of Southern Ontario, and New York are still occupied by the Iroquois Confederacy. The US has on many occasions recognized and confirmed the sovereignty of the Iroquois both in court and by declaration. In Canada, the "polishing of the Chain" signified by the presentation of the gifts by the Queen reaffirms the sovereignty and independence of the Iroquois Confederacy as friends and allies of the Crown. As well the Iroquois Confederacy still maintains its 1100 year old participatory government - the same one that the US fashioned their own Constitution after 250 years ago. A just to restate it, the US already recognizes the sovereignty of the Iroquois Confederacy, in as much as the Supreme Court of Canada is also reaffirming the sovereign interests of First Nations today, through far-reaching constitutional decisions. While Canada does not currently accept the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) passport, this polishing of the chain is likely to change all of that. This one gesture unravels the way that Canada has viewed the Iroquois Confederacy and will over time restore the recognition of the control of lands, to the Confederacy through a spirit of Peace, Goodwill and Friendship. The honour of the Crown depends on it.