CANADIEN

The First Nations don't owe me one thing, I actually see it the other way around, but of course to you anybody who don't agree with your misreading of the facts is a racist (of course,, it is very racist to know that the Mississauga themselves consider their ancestors moved into southern Ontario at the end of the 17th century and did not return north of Lake Superior and the 18th, 19th or 20th century). And it is because I have been listening to you that I know that a pre-requisite to learning more about our First Nations past is to ignore you.

In the case of expending human rights protection to First Nations, it should be noted that the Assembly of First Nations wanted them to be expended to reservations. However, it, along with the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Native Women's Association of Canada, opposed the legislation tabled by the Harper Government in 2006 on various ground: - lack of consultation with First Nations (same old same old... "we need you to take responsibility, so we'll tell you how to do things"); - not enough time (6 months, when the Human Rights Commission estimated that at least 18 months would be needed) and resources given for implementing on-reserve human rights mechanisms - no recognition of the necessary balance between human rights and collective rights (such as right to self-government) It should also be noted that the Congress of Aboriginal People (which mostly represent off-reserve Aboriginal Canadians) was at the same time urging the Government to pass its proposed legislation. Finally, it should be noted that the Harper Government withdrew its proposed legislation two months ago. Guess human rights for our FN is less important than admiting a bill needs to be changed.

The Kelowna Accord actually measure to strenghten accountability by First Nation leaders, as well as clear targets in education (22000 more FN university graduates and 14800 more post-secondary graduates), health (reduction of 20% in child mortality, youth suicide and child diabetes), employment (reduction of unemployment by 30%), and other sectors, all over 5 years. That the Conservatives have discarted it for a crisis management approach (water gets contaminated, we come to the rescue) is nothing to impress me.

Bizarre, isn't it, that archaelogical evidence shows that the Mississaugas came to southern Ontario from north of Lake Superior in the late17th and 18th centuries, and not the other way around at the end of the 18th century, unless of course they came south, then came back north, then came back south again -- gotta ask, since all the Missisauga reservations are in southern Ontario, not north of Lake Superior. Bizarre, isn't it, that the Tuscaroras were a junior member of the Iroquois Confederacy and remained a distinct Nation but that the Neutrals, Cats, etc. were just absorbed in the Five-Nations and ceased to exist as distinct nations, yet in our "logic" that means they had the same status. Bizarre, isn't it, that the Wyendats that fled east end up not in Montreal but just north of Quebec City. Bizarre, isn't it, that there is a difference between the Iroquois Confederacy controlling much of the trade in the north-east part of North America, and therefore being a much-needed trade partner on a continental scale, and them controlling the trade across the continent. I am sure that the Aleut were secretly cursing themselves for not having allied with their iroquois trade partners before the Russians came in. What is bizarre, though, is that you managed to have one good idea. I should indeed strive to learn more that I already know about the history of our First Nations. Which means I won't read any other postings you have on the topic. Because I'd rather learn from people who know something than from you.

Now that I finished laughing at some of the absurdities you post... The correct translation of the text of the treaty of Utrecht would be "the Five Nations or districts of the Indians subjected to Great Britain" (actually, I am a translator ). This makes it very clear that the British Government considered the Iroquois as being their subjects, which implies a British claim of sovereignty (which you are clearly unable to distinguish from ownership); similarly, the fact that the British Crown referred to the Indian territory as ITS territory and dominion in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 makes their position very clear. As well as the fact that the Mitchell Map includes a claim of British sovereignty on the area they considered to be in the possession of the Six-Nations. Which is not undermining the three things you got right: that the Six Nations (I thought they were at least eight... according to you) were an important allied of Great Britain, that there is eidence of Iroquoian settlement dating as far back as the 12th-13th centuries north of Lake Ontario (as well as evidence that they had been displaced by the Mississaugas by the middle of the 18th-century), and that one of the objectives of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was to respond to concerns by the Iroquois (and other First Nations) about encroachment by white settlers (while, as clearly stated in the text iteself, making a claim of British sovereignty over Indian territory). I would be even be willing to give you kudos for (rightly) pointing out that the members of the Iroquois Confederacy who settled on the Haldimand Tract and the Bay of Quinte area were (rightly) concerned about white encroachment... if you were not shooting yourself in the foot in the process. If, as you claim, the Mississaugas were the eighth members in the Iroquois Confederacy (of six Nations), why did the British Government buy land from the Mississaugas (and therefore, according to you, the Iroquois Confederacy) so that Iroquois could settle on land which (to follow your "logic") they already owned? Which lead me to... the big laugh. While there were treaties between the Iroquois Confederacy and the Mississaugas, the claim that it made them the eight member of the Iroquois Confederacy is based (at least if we follow your "logic") on the notion than the Abenakis had already become the seven Nation. Which would mean that both the 7th and 8th members of the Confederacy joined it BEFORE the known 6th members (the Tuscaroras, between 1715 and 1720). A fact that, among others, the British and French diplomats who wrote the Treaty of Utrecht must have not been told about, since they mention the FIVE nations... and a fact that (in regard to the Abenakis), Mitchell must have been unaware of since he placed traditional Abenaki land as part of New England colonies. Do yourself a favour, and learn to read the information you have at your disposal.

Article 15 of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) reads (in the original French text) The British interpreted it as meaning the Itoquois Confederacy and its lands were under British sovereignty, while the French contested that interpretation. French and British commissioners met first in 1715, then between 1750 and 1754, to settle questions arising from the treaty as to the borders of their mutual claims, without success (source: Historical Atlas of Canada, vol. 1). The two powers may have not sought posession of land (not a claim I would make anyway), but they were most certainly engaged in a dispute as to who had sovereignty over it. As for the contention that Mitchell's map was commissioned in order to "reference the lands" that were covered in 1763 in the Royal Proclamation, it has no foundation in facts. First, Mitchell's stated intention was to show the extent of French and British claims in North America and point out what he considered to be French encroachments on British territory (more of this on the Web page by the Osher Map Library of the University of Southern Maine on their copy of Mitchell's map, [email=http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/toc.html]http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/toc.html[/email]. Second, as I have already pointed out, the title of the map itself is a clue as to the intent of its creator. Further, the claim that Mitchell's map was commissioned in preparation for the Royal Proclamation ignores that more than two-thirds of the Proclamation said nothing about Indian land, but rather spoke about the creation of four new British colonies, Quebec, East and West Florida, and Grenada, out of territories acquired from France and Spain in the Treaty of Paris (1763). I doubt very that the British Government knew in 1755 that France would be so utterly defeated eight years later that it would have to surrender virtually all of its North American empire. The full text of the Proclamation can be found at [email=http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2]http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2[/email] So far I have... the text of the Treaty of Utrecht, the text of the Royal Proclamation, Web information from academic sources, and the fact that Mitchell is (unless proven otherwise), the only 18th-century person claiming that the Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy. As for you, CR, you have even one 18th-century text supporting Mitchell's claim about the Misssissaugas? Or some academic sources supporting your claim that the map was prepared as part of the preparation for the Royal proclamation of 1763? I didn't think so. I may be out of my league, but clearly your are not even near the ball park. PS: You will note that I have not touched the issue of the role played by the Iroquois as allies of Great-Britain. And I won't, it has nothing to do with your ignorant claims about Mitchell's map.

AS for the topic of assimilation... It is clear that most of our sets of reference for our laws, our political system and relationships between the various components of our society are British in origin. Newcomers should keep this in mind when INTEGRATING in our society. Integration, though, is not assimilation, that is the complete abandonment by individuals of their cultural identity and practice. Immigrants should integrate into our society. They do not have or need to assimilate to do so. Further, respect for the rights of the individuals is one of the hallmarks of our British and Canadian heritage, including the notion that these rights are not be trampled upon even in the name of the majority of citizens. Our Charter may not be perfect, but it examplifies the best of who we are as a society.

The title itself is a clue as to the aim of its author. The original map, as I stated, dates 1755 (here's a link to a page on the copy of the second print of the 1755 edition, held by the Library of Congress, [email=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g3300+np000009))]http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g3300+np000009))[/email]). You make a lot of the fact the map was done a few years before the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as if the map had been made for the purpose of marking the boundary of the land possessed by First Nations. That was not its purpose. The map was drawn for the sole and clear purpose of backing British claims against French claims. The Royal Proclamation came AFTER the territorial dispute between the two European nations ended with the Treaty of Paris. It is easy to read word on a map. Actually interpreting it in its proper context is another matter all together.

It's English, indeed, so read it. Although you may feel welcome to use a different meaning of the word posession than the one used by the British Government in the Royal Proclamation, the FACT remains that it considered those lands as the Crown's Dominions and Territories, and therefore that they considered the Crown had sovereignty and the First Nations posssession on land not ceded or sold. And it should also be clear that I believe that land not ceded or sold to the Crown is owned by whatever Nations occupying it.

The Iroquois Confederacy destroyed most of their neighbours as separate nations, and absorded most of their population (in other words, assimilated them). Quite different from extermination, but at the same time clearly not the same as the Iroquois Confederacy extending from five to eight or more nations. In fact, only one nation joined the initial Five Nation Confederacy: the Tuscarora, who fled with is now North Carolina around 1715-1720, and were welcomed in the Confederacy as a sixth (non-voting) member. Other nations were linked to the Iroquois Confederacy through the Covenant Chain, but they were NOT part of the Confederacy. The Mississaugas, which were not to my knowledge part of the Covenant Chain, were at times allies and at times enemies of the Confederacy, but they wer NOT part of it. I have seen the map, and know what Mitchell wrote on it. That he wrote it most certainly does not make true though. Nobody else, unless proven otherwise, left any text stating that the Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy. There is on the contrary plenty of texts describing the Confederacy as comprised first of five, then six nations. Context is everything. The Mitchell map is not a 18th-century equivalent of a National Geographic world map or a Perly's street atlas. The original map and the second edition were made at the request of the British Board of Trade, for one purpose, that of "proving" British claims at the expense of French claims. Claiming that Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy, and that the Confederacy was subject to British Crown, or expending the borders of Massachusetts north to the St. Lawrence River, are only examples of how that map was not as much a geographic exercise as a propaganda tool. it is one thing to state rightly, that First Nations posessed the land until cession or sale to the Crown, at that the Crown has the burden of proving that cession has occured. The burden of proving that a given First Nation occupied and therefore posessed the land falls on that First Nation. In the case of land surrendered by the Mississaugas to the Crown, it is up to those who claim the Iroquois Confederacy occupied that land at the time of the surrender to prove the land was Iroquois and not Mississauga. And the fallacy written on the Mitchell map does not cut it.

Two comments, first on the Royal Proclamation of 1763, second on the Haldimand Tract From the Royal Proclamation: The text mentions possession, which as limited as it may have been, implied ownership. Further, the very mention of cession and purchase implies than the British Crown considered that, while it had sovereignty over the land, First Nations had original possessions. On the Haldimand Tract: from the Haldimand Provlamation of 1784: The word posssession again...

I will admit it is entertaining to see people make foul of themselves by claiming that well-known efforts at wiping entire cultures were in fact generous actions that helped preserve those cultures. That being said, having seen the Mitchell map and read around its background, I disagree with your interpretation of it. It should be noted the first edition of the map dates 1755, the date of the official declaration of war between Great Britain and France, and one year after the failure of the latest attempt at resolving issues arising of conflicting interpretations of the borders set by the Treaty of Utrecht. The Mitchell map was produced in this context, and should be considered first and foremost as British propagenda. The map shows the limit of Iroquois territory as expending to most of the American mid-west and southern Ontario (not ALL of Ontario) for two reasons. First, the Iroquois Confederacy had destroyed most of the other First Nations in that area through the 17th century. Second. the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated that the Iroquois were now British subjects (a clause that the Iroquois themselves disputed); therefore Mitchell was essentially laying a claim of British sovereignty over the whole area by piggybacking on Iroquois conquests. Furthermore, I would seriously question any claim that the Iroquois were occupying southern Ontario by the time of Mitchell's map, despite him referencing Northern Iroquois north of the Great Lakes. Beginning with the late 17th-early 18th century, Mississaugas and other Ojibwe nations gradually moved south, and by the time of Mitchell's map they, not the Iroquois Confederacy, had villages horth of the Great Lakes. If we add to that the Mississaugas were never part of the Iroquois Confederacy (I have never heard that one until today) and that the British Crown later bought land north of the great Lakes from the Mississaugas, not the Iroquois, I doubt very much that any Iroquois claim to the whole or significant part of southern ontario would stand in an independant court (5the issue of the Haldimand tract aside).

The US Government contend that they are criminals, and I for one believe that a least some of the acts they stand accused of commiting are crimes. The moment these individuals are in US custody and the US decides to try them as criminals, they have a right to contest their detention. As for the opposition expressed by some, including Bush and McCain, to the Court determination, it is not based on a belief these men are POW; it based on the belief they are not deserving on any legal recourse and mechanism afforded to other people accused of a crime.

These individuals were released as part of an agreement between the US and Saudi government, not as a result of any of the court decisions. While I think it is a stupid idea, the blame lays with the Bush administration, not the Court.

Three other cases related to the detention of individuals for terrorism have been heard by the US Supreme Court: - in Hamdi vs Rumsfeldt (2004), the Court determined that an US citizen detained as an ennemy combattant had the legal right to contest the legality of his detention in court through a writ of habeas corpus - in Rasul vs Bush (same day as Hamdi), the Court determined that the US court system had authority to determine if non-Americans detained at Guantanamo are rightfully emprisoned - in Hamdan vs Rumsfeldt (2006), the Court determined that the military commissions set up to try ennemy combattants held at Guantanamo could not proceed because they violated both the (US) Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. And there there is Boumedienne vs Bush (June 12, 2008) in which the Court determined that the Military Commission Act of 2006 (ironically, passed in response to the Hamdan vs Rumsfeldt decision) violated the right of persons detained in Guantanamo to coontest the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. It is important to note that the Court has NEVER ordered the release of people detained in Guantanamo. It has NEVER determined that they were innocent of any charge brought against them. It has NEVER determined that the US government could not hold, try, convict and sentence them. What it did determine is that the process used violated US law. Quite a difference.

In the US system, the Legislative branch (that is, at the Federal level, the Ccongress), passes legislation. The Executive branch (the President) is responsible for implementing legislation passed by Congress; the President can also veto such law, but the veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress. The Judicial branch (the Courts) interprets legislation by, among other things, determining if it is constitutional or not. In this particular case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine if a particular law passed by the Congress and enforced by the President was constitutional. They said no, on the grounds that it violated the rights of a person to contest the legality of his detention through a writ of habeas corpus.

US Supreme Court and the rule of law 3 -- George W. Bush 0

Looks to me like BC is not studying himself then

No, he is not. But he sure look pretty scary to some right-wingers, if this is all they can muster.

Barack Obama must be an even better human being than I though, to generate this level of m*nure

"It has been done before, so it's OK to do even worse". I wonder if that would apply to terrorist acts, genocides, murders, rapes, etc. Not I think it should, obviously, but then, neither you or I try to push that line.

Don't worry, I do not believe any person on this planet is pure and without sin. But from an illegal war to turture to attacks on individual freedoms, the Bush administration ranks quite a few notches below what one would expect from a US government.

Omar Khadr is a terrorist. And as far as I am concerned he can rot in an American jail. AFTER HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED IN A LEGITIMATE COURT OF LAW. The military commission and most especially its procedures are anything but legitimate. In a legitimate court of law, an accused person is informed of the evidence against him/her, and given an opportunity to respond to it. This is not happening here. While an argument could be made that some evidence need to be (partly) concealed on national security grounds, determining what should be concealed should be done by an independent party, not the prosecution. In the Khadr case, one has to wonder what kind of information needs to remain secret: surely, it cannot be the reports stating that he was there, or any report stating that he fired the shot that killed an American soldier, or the autopsy report. May be it's from watching too much "Law and Order", but if you have the murder weapon, and the corpse, and the accused being arrested on the spot, you probably don't need secret evidence to prove your case Some of the "justification" provided for the military commission is so absurd that it would elicit laughter if the subject wasn't that serious. "They are terrorists, so why bother with normal procedure"? - if a (mostly) normal trial, with lawyers for the accused and divulgation of the evidence, was good enough for Herman Goering in Nuremburg, it's good enough for Omar Khadr. "It's not in the US, so it's not subject to US law"? - Must be subject to Cuban law then - that's why you have Cuban health inspectors all the time checking the officers' mess' kitchen. And the worse is "You are against the military commission, you must think Khadr is a nice guy". What a pile of m*nure. It's not about Khadr, it's about justice.

The Bush administration has not apologized to Maher Arar. They had not acknowledged he was submitted to rendition, and have not acknowledge that they practice rendition, and that is morally wrong. The actions of the Bush administration, and its refusal to admit its wrongdoings, stand as proof of its moral failure.

This issue goes beyond legal and illegal, and it is a matter of rights or wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the US government wanted Arar to be tortured by the Syrian authorities, the same way Canadian security agencies relied on "confessions" made by Arar under torture. In both cases, we are dealing with a actions that are morally wrong.