CANADIEN

News to you. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were a forgery; the Protocols of the Elders of the Chateau Frontenac is a figment of your imagination. I totally agree that anyone with a pea for a brains knows that. Anyone with an actual BRAIN for a brain knows otherwise.

Noone? Then for starters, there's me. BTW, I was just trying to abide by YOUR standard. Remember,? If ones talks about Quebec, the whole of the country's population should, according to YOU, be taken into acount. What is good then is also good when talking of Canada ouside of Quebec, isn't it? Or if it is not, then one is justified in thinking that you are either an hypocrite, or too clueless to remember what you said. Or, as I suspect, both.

Rational people will do it

How anyone could miss that he was mocking a particular view is mind-boggling

Racism DOES exist in this country. But to argue that a majority of Canadians want thugs armed with axes and guns roaming through the reservations or downtown Winnipeg killing any Native they can lay their hands on. Insanity is indeed a good word to describe people who think that's the case.

The lie... YOUR lie... is that a majority of Canadians want another Rwanda right here within our borders. If you will not have decency to retract that lie, then there's nothing more any of us need to hear from a hateful small mind like yours... ignored

Good advice. Follow it yourself. Indeed, there is no lack of loony bins (also known as racists) showing their stripes in the media. You will also find quite a few populating First nations websites. But I haven't seen a lot of calls for geneocide. Equally important, people who spend their time writing to newspapers or arguing on the Web (and yes, that includes all of us here) are hardly representative of anyone but themselves. AS I said, somebody with a sense of decency would have withdrawn that comment about a majority of Canadians wanting another Rwanda. Not surprisingly, you won't.

I've asked myself, and guess what: when was the last time there was an independent French-Canadian nation?

No it hasn't, except to you. Being sovereign is not something a nation identifies itself as being. It is something that is being recognized by other nations. And anecdotal "evidence" (we can travel to 50 country with our passport) aside, that has not occured.

I almost missed this, which is one of the most irresponsible and insulting pieces of drivel written on this site (and I have seen bad). Decency would demand that you retract it, but I do not expect you to do it. :angry: :angry: :angry:

Nice attempt at ducking after insulting me and proving (I'll be nice today, icnredible stupidity in the face of clear evidence on this Web site that I know my roots as a French-Canadian and therefore a CANADIAN). The roots of French-Canadians are not the roots of Aboriginal purpose, and it is poor understanding of facts to argue otherwise. BTW, it is not the roots of Aboriginal Nations I dispute, and if you believe that your reading skills are even poorer than my writing skills. What I dispute is the notion that First Nations are sovereign nations in 2010. Do yourself a favour and don't try to attribute to me opinions that I don't have and haven't expressed.

Wake me up when that happens. True, but then, I have never claimed it as. Your central point, that in 2010 First Nations are sovereign nations, has not been made.

Interesting that you choose this case. I say interesting because - the Chippewas sought to have land in dispute returned from private corporation owners to them, and compensation paid by the Crown for land currently owned by individuals (the explanation of the history of the land in question, is like the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, long) - the case was rejected - in rejecting the case, the judges stated than, and I quote

And of course, nobody who has read my postings can logically claim that I think the purpose of the Royal Proclamation was to subvert First Nations rights or that I want it to be the case. What I and other have demonstrated is that the British Crown did clearly asserted a cliam of sovereignty in the Proclamation. We`ve heard your opinion to the contraty before. It doesn't make it so just because YOU believe it. You are of course free to show the text of any court judgement that interprets the Royal Proclamation as meaning any First Nation is a sovereign state - and I mean one with the actual word sovereign in it.

Interesting, that's exactly what I thought about your saying that I have lost track of my roots. Now, as to the issue of whether or not First nations are sovereign states. They are not. There is an undeniable fact that historically, they were sovereign. But they had then something that they do not have now: recognition by other sovereign nations that they were independent sovereign nations, effective control of their foreign policy. Also, to paraphrase the definition of sovereignty in the Strand Judiciial Disctionary, they exercised de facto control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country. The loss of sovereignty was not the result (at least in the case of most First Nations) of military conquest. Not that military conquest is the only way sovereignty can be lost. In this case, the process was long and subtle. It started the moment European powers decided that they could dispose of the land without consulting the First nations (treaties of Utrecht, Paris (1763), Paris (1783), Ghent). It continued with the British (and later the Canadian) Crown ascerting and in effect exercising a greater and greater control over the lives of the First Nations and the administration fo their land. While there is no doubt that this was wrong in its intent and operations, and disastrous in its result, the process took place nonetheless. When one nation is not seating at the table of the Nations (and by that I do not mean necessarily seating at the UN), when it does not control its border, when its grievances against another nation have to go through the courts of that nation, when it does not exercise sole full administrative control on its lands, it is not sovereign. Any time any First Nation goes before the Supreme Court of Canada and invokes the Constitution, it does it fact recognizes the authority of both. Sovereign nations do not recognize the Constitution of other sovereign nations as having authority over them, except in a very limited fashion. Sovereignty does not exist unless it is effectively exercised. The sending of envoys to foreign countries (which, in the case of the First Nations, are not being recognized as ambassadors), the granting of passports, the claim that "we never surrendered our sovereignty" are not enough by themselves. Proof that other countries, right now, in 2010, recognize that sovereignty, effective control over its foregin policy, effective control of borders, undisputed supreme authority of First Nations laws on First nation lands without the Supreme court of Canada having any authority - that would constitute undisputable proof of sovereignty. That being said, it is undisputable that First Nations: - are nations - have a right to self-determination, including the right to seek to BECOME AGAIN sovereign - have a right to conduct their own business and govern themselves to the extent their actions do not clash with Canadian Constitution and laws (that is, until such a time when they become sovereign again, if it happens) - have a relationship to the Crown different from that of other Canadians It is also undisputable that the Crown : - has failed in its the responsibilities it had assumed towards First Nations - has a duty to deal fairly and honourably with First nations - has a responsibility to take into account (but not necessarily to accept as binding) First Nation's interpretations of past events and treaties - has a responsibility to recognize that First nation land titles have not been exthinguished except when surrendered I will draw the line at recognizing a sovereignty that, in 2010, simply does not exist.

We are not talking about the electoral platform of either the LPC or the CPC. We are talking about the Government, which last time I checked answered to us.

Seeing the FACTS is not bias. And Canada is not a myth. After all, its passport is recognized all around the world and the COUNTRY is recognized as a sovereign country by at least 179 countries. As for that statement of yours that I have lost track of my own roots... Let's just say my mother taught me manners, so I'll limit myself to saying that you have to a complete brain-dead moron to utter such absolute garbage non-sense.

I said RECOGNIZE the Six Nations as a sovereign state. But hey, feel free to prove they do so... what's the address of their embassies to the Six Nations? By the way, passports issued by the Palestinian authorities are accepted by 43 contries. Palestine is not a sovereign state. Nor is the Conch Republic, whose passport has been used as an identity document outside of the United States (of course, I wouldn't even think of Six Nations or Palestine as an equivalent to the Conch Republic, but you need to come with something more subtantial than "they passport is accepted") Ten thousand web site with the same erroneous information won't make it factual. What can I say, I only understand what makes sense. Correction. You made a statement that is so non-sensical that it only deserve to be laughed at.

News to you. Courts do not issue declarations, even though media or individuals are prone to say the courts "declare" things. They issue judgements, orders or opinions. Not declarations.

You never figured out I am the King of Typos? If you did, you know the word I misspelled was think. As for CR, that's Charter Rights. Considering the non-sense from the two of you on this thread, I think it should be left for the two of you alone.

As I said, there are two versions of the story, both put forward by The Confederacy and its supporters, and there is not enough info provided to support one or another. And as I said, you'll choose the one that fits your narrative. Come back on this one when the facts are well established. You cannot name ONE country that is recognizing the Six Nations as a sovereign state. If there is even one, please name it once. What you keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating does not constitute evidence that the Six Nations are a sovereign state, no matter how you try to make it sound like it meets the definition and ignore it. The funniest part is that I once considered First nations to be sovereign states. EXcept that the more I thought about it, and the more I looked into it, the less sense it made. As for the legend that Canada has no land mass (interesting that I have not raised the issue of land mass, isn't it), only one response can be made to it...

Mind you, some sovereignty states are not or where not at the UN. Switzerland, for example, was not a member until 2002. The Holy See (the Vatican) is considered a sovereign state in international law and is not member.

Call it what ever you want... self-government is not the same as sovereignty. When you can show that the Six Nations, or any First Nation for that matter, have accredited diplomats, an army or any other attribute of a sovereign state, then you will have a case. Not until then. Interesting case that of two women being beaten by custom agents and suing the Government of Canada. Interesting not because of the beating, obviously (a crime, as for as I concerned) but because to different stories of what happened in court have been put forward by Mohaks and their supporters. In one, the two women went to the court, said that as Mohawk they were not Canadians and the court`s protonothary agreed with them. In the other version, the two women sued the federal government, government lawyers argued that the two women could not sue because they resided in the US - not Canada, the two women argued in court that it was a lie and that they WERE Canadian residents, and the court sided with the Government. Two different stories. Asthe court order will not be published (they rarely are), we will not know the full story, so I am not concluding that one of the stories is true and the other one false. You, of course, will jump on anything that support your flight of fancy.

Methink it would be good to let you and CR debate with eah other alone. The wilfully ignorant and the one making thins up...

Clinton took advantage of an economic rebound. Unless it comes to Obama, and it starts within a year or so, he is toast.