Pitt River BC Project

[DangerMouse]

Anybody follow the developments on stopping this project? I wanted to point out something...primarily, non-native protesters rallied to stop the project. They succeeded, but the media coverage was so different compared to aboriginal protesters. If they were native they would've been displayed as trouble-makers, stopping progress; on the streets rednecks would be attacking natives including young teens; the rightwing politicians would be seething etc etc...need I say more? Comments?

[Drea]

Conjecture!

Next!

Edited March 28, 2008 by Drea

[DangerMouse]

Conjecture!

Next!

That's all you could come up with? Ms The "native race is not a race!"

[Drea]

Why you "mutt" you! All mixed up with other races... (me too silly!) Why do you find it so difficult to accept that you are descended from orientals and whites?

I don't fight the fact that I am descended from German, Scottish, French, Norweigan and Native peoples. I am proud to be a Heinz 57... surely you agree that a mixed breed is hardier.

But in THIS thread you are conjecting that the protest would not have been successful if it were a native protest... Instead of whining, why not join those environmentalists? Or do you want the Pitt River staked out by private corporations?

[DangerMouse]

Why you "mutt" you! All mixed up with other races... (me too silly!) Why do you find it so difficult to accept that you are descended from orientals and whites?

I don't fight the fact that I am descended from German, Scottish, French, Norweigan and Native peoples. I am proud to be a Heinz 57... surely you agree that a mixed breed is hardier.

But in THIS thread you are conjecting that the protest would not have been successful if it were a native protest... Instead of whining, why not join those environmentalists? Or do you want the Pitt River staked out by private corporations?

No! I am saying that media coverage is totally different for the 2 groups. Natives who carry out similar events are portrayed totally different as trouble-makers.

And when did I say that I had difficulty accepting the so-called theory that I am white and oriental? By the way who came up with that theory? The same people who categorized natives as 4th World people? Do you believe everything you read? When you think about it, history is just one "GREAT BIG LIE!" designed to make people like you feel great and that you've done the indians a world of good...SNAP OUT OF IT!!!

[Drea]

Whether or not europeans came here to "make Indians feel good" is debatable. I am pretty sure they didn't give one iota of thought to the "feelings" of natives.

Back then we lived in a kill or be killed world. No one thought of fairness or equality... to early europeans everyone who didn't act like them were considered savages . I disagee. Eary europeans were notoriously disgusting creatures. Natives said they could actually "smell" them coming before they got ashore ... that's the Christian religion for yah -- they considered it a "sin" to see even one's own naked body...

The Christian religion, remember, was also the driving force that took native kids from families.... yet you blame everyone but them. Hell, some of you even still believe in that religious garbage to this day (the power of propaganda again).

IMO, welfare and government handouts have kept natives from success, it's not because you are native that you are unsuccessful. I blame the early governments for putting natives on reserves instead of just having them be part of society. I blame natives for not wanting more out of life -- for thinking a welfare cheque is enough. Natives have gotten so used to living with little expectations in life so they no longer strive to be better.

How long (to the end of the earth?) do we have to pay for conquering this country 400+ years ago?

I cannot go back to Germany and get my anscestor's brewery or the land it sat on back -- it was lost in the first world war.

So what makes you think you can have anything back? If I can't have my brewery, you can't have your land.

"To the victor go the spoils" was the mantra of the day.

It was war and war is ugly and unfair. THe best thing to do is put the past behind you and live for today and tomorrow. Yesterday is done and gone.

[DangerMouse]

...How long (to the end of the earth?) do we have to pay for conquering this country 400+ years ago?

I cannot go back to Germany and get my anscestor's brewery or the land it sat on back -- it was lost in the first world war.

So what makes you think you can have anything back? If I can't have my brewery, you can't have your land.

"To the victor go the spoils" was the mantra of the day.

It was war and war is ugly and unfair. THe best thing to do is put the past behind you and live for today and tomorrow. Yesterday is done and gone.

Wow what was in your coffee this morning? War? There was no war between the colonialist and the natives! Not in Canada anyways...and the 2 ways the colonialist had to obtain control was either by war or treaty. The governments did neither...so the claim is still a valid one You did not conquer this country nor settle it by treaty. Wow at least you see the picture partially, despite what was in the coffee this morning.

[Wilber]

There was no war between the colonialist and the natives! Not in Canada anyways...and the 2 ways the colonialist had to obtain control was either by war or treaty. The governments did neither...so the claim is still a valid one You did not conquer this country nor settle it by treaty. Wow at least you see the picture partially, despite what was in the coffee this morning.

And yet the question will be decided by courts established by Europeans according to laws largely made by Europeans. If there is a valid claim, it will be decided according to principles established by Europeans. Seems there was a third way.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Wilber

[charter.rights]

The Christian religion, remember, was also the driving force that took native kids from families.... yet you blame everyone but them. Hell, some of you even still believe in that religious garbage to this day (the power of propaganda again).

IMO, welfare and government handouts have kept natives from success, it's not because you are native that you are unsuccessful. I blame the early governments for putting natives on reserves instead of just having them be part of society. I blame natives for not wanting more out of life -- for thinking a welfare cheque is enough. Natives have gotten so used to living with little expectations in life so they no longer strive to be better.

How long (to the end of the earth?) do we have to pay for conquering this country 400+ years ago?

I cannot go back to Germany and get my anscestor's brewery or the land it sat on back -- it was lost in the first world war.

So what makes you think you can have anything back? If I can't have my brewery, you can't have your land.

"To the victor go the spoils" was the mantra of the day.

It was war and war is ugly and unfair. THe best thing to do is put the past behind you and live for today and tomorrow. Yesterday is done and gone.

Fortunately in the name of intelligent discussion, you are patently wrong. GOVERNMENT is responsible for the creation of the residential school system. It was a genocidal act by people in power and the Churches became the delivery agent and caused the abuses.

Natives do not receive "government handouts" in any greater proportion than ordinary Canadians. Welfare is a social safety net for everyone. Natives have a greater need because their median wage is about 50% below the average Canadian, and they have more risk factors in their communities.

Natives were never conquered. Europeans came here by agreements of peace and land treaties were made that offered some rights to the British, while maintaining native control of the land. The Supreme Court has ruled in most case that that residual "control" of the land they maintain requires the Canadian governments to consult and accommodate their interests - forever. The fact is it isn't OUR land. It belongs to the natives and we have made agreements by which we must live up to, or suffer the legal consequences. Reserves are "untouchable" land bases. So your suggestions fall into that "ignorant" category.

You can't go back to Germany and reclaim your family's brewery because the Germans were conquered after WW2. If it was taken from you and you didn't have an agreement with the victors then it is lost to you- forever!

There was no war with natives. But I can clearly see how conflicted you are in your own mind. Perhaps another ten beers first thing this morning will help you think straight? It might be worth the try.....

[charter.rights]

And yet the question will be decided by courts established by Europeans according to laws largely made by Europeans. If there is a valid claim, it will be decided according to principles established by Europeans. Seems there was a third way.

The 'laws" were for settlers and colonists, not natives. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 for instance banned settlers from moving into "Indian lands" and from making deals with natives for land parcels. They had no control over the natives, and still don't for the most part - except where band governments have accepted Canadian law in lieu of their own. In the concept of self-government, the government relinquishes statute law in favour of aboriginal law based on customs and community choice.

Those First Nations that choose the Specific Lands Claims process can streamline their claims for a few cents on the dollar. Those that don't could use the courts. However, "the third option" is to reclaim the land under dispute and force the government in negotiations to prove that the land was ever ceded according to our supreme law - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Royal Proclamation 1763. This latter option seems to work much better because our government has been living on the basis of lies, myths and assumptions and under the law they don't have a legal case to stand on. Now that this is being pointed out on many fronts across the country, it turns out that we don't have a leg to stand on, once the natives push our legal documents back in our faces.

I read in one of the newspapers on-line the other day the the dispute at Deseronto, where the natives occupied a quarry and forced the closure of some highways is on its way to being settled. The government has maintained that they would not give any land back, and yet it was announced that the natives are getting over 300 acres back for sure and are looking at ways to dispose of the remaining property owner's interests - most likely the government will buy them out..... It kinda makes me wonder what happens when we get to the really big claims and why the government hasn't taken a more congenial and pro-active route to lands claims settlement. Apparently their next claim will be to the entire Tyendinaga Township in Southern Ontario comprising some 56 square miles. With all the lands claims across Canada, one would think a pro-active government would want them settled instead of paying billions for loss of use AND returning the land we had no claim to in the first place.

[Wilber]

And all those laws, charters, claims processes, courts and principles which will determine the validity of those claims were established by who?

[DangerMouse]

And all those laws, charters, claims processes, courts and principles which will determine the validity of those claims were established by who?

Wow! Someone who actually sees the picture! Wilber! You're my hero I don't care what all those others say about you! So now that you've helped me get a point across--I pose a question to the likes of Drea, Borg, and all those other "indian-slammin'-alkies," why do they give natives crap over all those laws etc that were written by Europeans. The Indian Act was not written by Indians! The constitution was not written by natives and to give them crap over it is dozy! The natives have not only taken ignorant crap, but in some cases extreme racism, violence etc etc! All over a bunch of laws that were written by the first drunken founding fathers of this country. I heard John A MAcdonald loved his vodka too...snap out of it! grow up! the laws were written by you and to give the indians heck over it is downright ignorant and dozy!!

[Wilber]

Wow! Someone who actually sees the picture! Wilber! You're my hero I don't care what all those others say about you! So now that you've helped me get a point across--I pose a question to the likes of Drea, Borg, and all those other "indian-slammin'-alkies," why do they give natives crap over all those laws etc that were written by Europeans. The Indian Act was not written by Indians! The constitution was not written by natives and to give them crap over it is dozy! The natives have not only taken ignorant crap, but in some cases extreme racism, violence etc etc! All over a bunch of laws that were written by the first drunken founding fathers of this country. I heard John A MAcdonald loved his vodka too...snap out of it! grow up! the laws were written by you and to give the indians heck over it is downright ignorant and dozy!!

Whether natives give a crap or not, they are the only laws etc that count today. Regardless of how the question of claims is eventually resolved or what constitutes a persons rights, it will be done according to a system, set of principles and perception of human rights originally established in this country by Europeans. Deal with it because it isn't likely to change and if it does it is far more likely to be a result of influences comming from outside the country, just like it did after the Europeans arrived.

[charter.rights]

And all those laws, charters, claims processes, courts and principles which will determine the validity of those claims were established by who?

They are establish by the Canadian government for the Canadian people. First Nations are not Canadian by default. Many of them are still sovereign allies of the Crown, operating under their own set of laws and customs.

Our government, for whatever reason doesn't want to use the court system (probably because the courts don't support the lies, myths and fabrications our government has tried to represent as fact). Instead they created the Specific Claims Process, hoping that First Nations would be duped by the biased process. Most have not and now they have assertedtheir right over the land, the only choice the government has is to negotiate for some reasonable settlement. The validity of the claims is not determined by the government. It is determined by the First Nations who presents the evidence (which we have but have refused to look at). Its all in the records and there is little hope of us winning against the facts.

[charter.rights]

Whether natives give a crap or not, they are the only laws etc that count today. Regardless of how the question of claims is eventually resolved or what constitutes a persons rights, it will be done according to a system, set of principles and perception of human rights originally established in this country by Europeans. Deal with it because it isn't likely to change and if it does it is far more likely to be a result of influences comming from outside the country, just like it did after the Europeans arrived.

You silly little man. Human rights weren't established by Europeans. They are inherent in all of us. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms only recognizes ~some~ of those rights but limits much more than it really regards.

[Wilber]

You silly little man. Human rights weren't established by Europeans. They are inherent in all of us. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms only recognizes ~some~ of those rights but limits much more than it really regards.

Bullshit. There are no such thing as rights in nature. Rights are the invention of man. The particular rights we enjoy were invented by Europeans.

[charter.rights]

Bullshit. There are no such thing as rights in nature. Rights are the invention of man. The particular rights we enjoy were invented by Europeans.

We once roamed the earth without any borders. We once said exactly what was on our minds and decided how we would choose to live our lives. The church, then the government placed restrictions on those inherent rights. You have been conned. The Charter does not give you rights, in merely recognizes those that the government is not willing to restrict.

A seed has the inherent right to find its fertile ground, as do animals have the inherent right to move anywhere they want. If the grass chooses the crack in the concrete sidewalk, most often it will prevail. If the animal chooses the city to rummage for food then most likely it will find what it needs and retreat to the forest. Only man has seen fit to restrict the grass or the animal and other men for his own gain.

The very fact that you were born gave you the right to be here unfettered. If you choose to fall into the brainwashing of limitation, then only you are to blame.

BTW Native people had rights long before the European had them. Democratic rights. Freedom of Speech. Hunting and fishing. Land and commerce. Even the right of retribution and political impeachment. Most of these thing we don't have today because if we truly cherished our rights and stood up for them, government would have no control over us and big business would have a problem with that.

Edited March 30, 2008 by charter.rights

[Wilber]

We once roamed the earth without any borders. We once said exactly what was on our minds and decided how we would choose to live our lives. The church, then the government placed restrictions on those inherent rights. You have been conned. The Charter does not give you rights, in merely recognizes those that the government is not willing to restrict.

A seed has the inherent right to find its fertile ground, as do animals have the inherent right to move anywhere they want. If the grass chooses the crack in the concrete sidewalk, most often it will prevail. If the animal chooses the city to rummage for food then most likely it will find what it needs and retreat to the forest. Only man has seen fit to restrict the grass or the animal and other men for his own gain.

The very fact that you were born gave you the right to be here unfettered. If you choose to fall into the brainwashing of limitation, then only you are to blame.

BTW Native people had rights long before the European had them. Democratic rights. Freedom of Speech. Hunting and fishing. Land and commerce. Even the right of retribution and political impeachment. Most of these thing we don't have today because if we truly cherished our rights and stood up for them, government would have no control over us and big business would have a problem with that.

Animals or humans only have the rights they have the power to take for themselves. Other than the right to be dinner, a rabbit doesn't have the right to roam anywhere if there is a coyote in its way. That is how our system works. As much as they like to think othewise, humans are no different.

[charter.rights]

Animals or humans only have the rights they have the power to take for themselves. Other than the right to be dinner, a rabbit doesn't have the right to roam anywhere if there is a coyote in its way. That is how our system works. As much as they like to think othewise, humans are no different.

You're just being silly again. You have the inherent right to breath, walk and see. You even have the inherent right to write your silly nonsense here, subject to the limitations moderators have placed here. You have the inherent right to think and decide for yourself. Perhaps you are a masochist looking for someone to control and punish you? Then again based on your thinking mindset, it is likely you wouldn't even take responsibility for that. However, you have the inherent right to believe what you want to believe and that proves my point perfectly. Thank you.

[Wilber]

You're just being silly again. You have the inherent right to breath, walk and see. You even have the inherent right to write your silly nonsense here, subject to the limitations moderators have placed here. You have the inherent right to think and decide for yourself. Perhaps you are a masochist looking for someone to control and punish you? Then again based on your thinking mindset, it is likely you wouldn't even take responsibility for that. However, you have the inherent right to believe what you want to believe and that proves my point perfectly. Thank you.

Getting a little testy, what.

You only have a right to what others are not able take from you. I say it again, there are no such thing as rights in nature, only survival. The concept of "rights" is purely a human invention and our particular concept of rights is essentially a European invention starting with Magna Carta, including my so called "right" to express opinions on this forum. It does not exist in some other cultures. It doesn't exist in nature. I am not against the concept, one only has to look at the places it isn't observed to realize it is essentially a good thing but our system of "rights" exists because it restricts the rights of coyotes, not because rabbits have equal rights under nature.

[charter.rights]

Getting a little testy, what.

You only have a right to what others are not able take from you. I say it again, there are no such thing as rights in nature, only survival. The concept of "rights" is purely a human invention and our particular concept of rights is essentially a European invention starting with Magna Carta, including my so called "right" to express opinions on this forum. It does not exist in some other cultures. It doesn't exist in nature. I am not against the concept, one only has to look at the places it isn't observed to realize it is essentially a good thing but our system of "rights" exists because it restricts the rights of coyotes, not because rabbits have equal rights under nature.

Silly nonsense. The Iroquois Great Law goes back way before the Magna Carta by nearly 2 hundred years and was a formalized constitution of the Six Nations Confederacy. They were the first to formally recognize that all people have inherent rights and instituted a participatory democratic government system that is unmatched in the history of the world.

You aren't very well read now are you....

[Wilber]

Silly nonsense. The Iroquois Great Law goes back way before the Magna Carta by nearly 2 hundred years and was a formalized constitution of the Six Nations Confederacy. They were the first to formally recognize that all people have inherent rights and instituted a participatory democratic government system that is unmatched in the history of the world.

You aren't very well read now are you....

So what, Roman law pre dated Common Law in the British Isles by 1500 years or so. Where is it now? You make claims for native laws that are only word of mouth therefore they can be whatever you want them to be. Original copies of Magna Carta still exist. Even if you what you say is true, why should Iroquois Law take precedence over any other laws including those of Plains or Pacific Coastal Indians?

Edited March 31, 2008 by Wilber

[charter.rights]

So what, Roman law pre dated Common Law in the British Isles by 1500 years or so. Where is it now? You make claims for native laws that are only word of mouth therefore they can be whatever you want them to be. Original copies of Magna Carta still exist. Even if you what you say is true, why should Iroquois Law take precedence over any other laws including those of Plains or Pacific Coastal Indians?

The Iroquois Great Law still exists. The Six Nations Confederacy represents the longest continuing democracy in the history of the world. The Great Law is an Iroquois constitution and has no effect on plains or coastal natives UNLESS they choose to adopt it as their own. You can find copies of the written version of the Great Law all over the net. However, I'm told it is much too complex for simple English and the last speaker to recite it in full took something like 13 days to fully recite it.

Iroquois does take precedence over British, American and Canadian for the Iroquois people. And their rights are inherent - on the land, over hunting and fishing and over their own destinies. Our law, the Royal Proclamation 1763 confirms theirs.

I would suggest you check where that smoke is coming from. Your petty argument is going down in flames and blowing hard only makes it worse.

Edited March 31, 2008 by charter.rights

[Wilber]

The Iroquois Great Law still exists. The Six Nations Confederacy represents the longest continuing democracy in the history of the world. The Great Law is an Iroquois constitution and has no effect on plains or coastal natives UNLESS they choose to adopt it as their own. You can find copies of the written version of the Great Law all over the net. However, I'm told it is much too complex for simple English and the last speaker to recite it in full took something like 13 days to fully recite it.

Iroquois does take precedence over British, American and Canadian for the Iroquois people. And their rights are inherent - on the land, over hunting and fishing and over their own destinies. Our law, the Royal Proclamation 1763 confirms theirs.

I would suggest you check where that smoke is coming from. Your petty argument is going down in flames and blowing hard only makes it worse.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist but as it is word of mouth and there are no dated copies, you are asking me to take both its substance and date of origin on faith, something you would never do for someone elses claims.

By the Proclamation of 1763, you mean that European proclamation I assume. Certainly it provides an important basis for continuing claims and the continued employment of lawyers. To be continued.

[charter.rights]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist but as it is word of mouth and there are no dated copies, you are asking me to take both its substance and date of origin on faith, something you would never do for someone elses claims.

By the Proclamation of 1763, you mean that European proclamation I assume. Certainly it provides an important basis for continuing claims and the continued employment of lawyers. To be continued.

It exists. I don't care whether or not YOU accept oral history. The courts MUST accept it and when the Supreme Court recognizes oral history equally with written evidence then that makes it valid, regardless of your petty disagreement.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 was a law for US, to prohibit US from encroaching on native lands. It is as valid today as it was 250 years ago. The Supreme Court has told us that today it means that we must enter into meaningful consultation with natives when any development on lands they have an interest in - either by territorial control, never being ceded by them, or by future interest in land claims, or hunting and harvesting rights. That means NO DEVELOPMENT until they say so. That means NO DEVELOPMENT until they are satisfied their concerns and issues have been addressed - even it it means moving the project by hundreds of miles.

The bottom line to the whole misinformation that started this thread is that 1. all lands are considered to be Indian lands as defined by the Royal Proclamation, 2. We must prove to the natives that the lands were legally ceded (according to the Royal Proclamation) and, 3. Where lands were lawfully ceded and the natives still maintain an interest, we must consult and accommodate their concerns until they are satisfied. Any action that does not follow these steps may be legally stopped by court injunction (if the natives chose to use this path) or by occupation preventing access and development, as an exercise of their sovereign and inherent rights to the land. There isn't a thing you can say or do about it....except perhaps to continue to whine.

Edited March 31, 2008 by charter.rights