Pitt River BC Project

Wilber · March 31, 2008

Who's whining? My contention is that there is no such thing as inalienable rights other than in human heads. There is no universal or natural right to equality of beings. Exactly the opposite is true. Chaos is what rules the natural world. The only "rights" individuals or societies have are the ones they have the will and strength to take and keep. Charters and bills of rights are no different from any other law other than they have intentionally been made more difficult to change. My contention is that the "rights and freedoms" we enjoy are a product of Western European ideals. There are societies that believe many of our freedoms are downright immoral and want no part of them. In other societies where people do not have those freedoms it is because they don't have the power or desire to take and keep them. There is no "right" that entitles them.

When it comes to native claims, I don't maintain they have no validity or that they don't have to be resolved by mutual agreement, the Supreme Court has said they do. A court founded according to Western European principles of law and human rights, ruling on the strength of a proclamation made by an 18th century English king and how it effects those claims. Iroquois law has nothing to do with it.

charter.rights · April 1, 2008

Who's whining? My contention is that there is no such thing as inalienable rights other than in human heads. There is no universal or natural right to equality of beings. Exactly the opposite is true. Chaos is what rules the natural world. The only "rights" individuals or societies have are the ones they have the will and strength to take and keep. Charters and bills of rights are no different from any other law other than they have intentionally been made more difficult to change. My contention is that the "rights and freedoms" we enjoy are a product of Western European ideals. There are societies that believe many of our freedoms are downright immoral and want no part of them. In other societies where people do not have those freedoms it is because they don't have the power or desire to take and keep them. There is no "right" that entitles them.
When it comes to native claims, I don't maintain they have no validity or that they don't have to be resolved by mutual agreement, the Supreme Court has said they do. A court founded according to Western European principles of law and human rights, ruling on the strength of a proclamation made by an 18th century English king and how it effects those claims. Iroquois law has nothing to do with it.

The Iroquois Great Law recognizes rights and freedoms and had long before contact with Europeans. So your wild theory that rights recognition as a European invention is bull. Rights have been recognized for thousands of years. The Code of Hammurabi - the first legal statute recognized certain basic rights - the right of justice for the accused, and the protection of certain inalienable rights.

Native lands claims are solved through negotiation not the court system. The Supreme Court has upheld some principles in law when they were challenged by those First Nations that chose to sue the government. However, neither the government nor the courts set out the way the claims will be negotiated. And while the government has certain policies it says it adheres to, in the end even those are compromised.

Wilber · April 1, 2008

The Iroquois Great Law recognizes rights and freedoms and had long before contact with Europeans. So your wild theory that rights recognition as a European invention is bull. Rights have been recognized for thousands of years. The Code of Hammurabi - the first legal statute recognized certain basic rights - the right of justice for the accused, and the protection of certain inalienable rights.
Native lands claims are solved through negotiation not the court system. The Supreme Court has upheld some principles in law when they were challenged by those First Nations that chose to sue the government. However, neither the government nor the courts set out the way the claims will be negotiated. And while the government has certain policies it says it adheres to, in the end even those are compromised.

As I said before, there are no such thing as inalienable rights, only those you have the power to defend. The rights we have now were paid for with the blood of previous generations not bestowed on us by some magic entity.

I have never said that Europeans invented the concept of human rights even though the first recorded democracy was ancient Athens which would be on what continent? What I am saying is that our present concept of rights is most definitely European and the rule of law we follow is most definitely one based on European principles. The Supreme Court does not base its decisions on First Nations law even if it does chose to take it into consideration.

charter.rights · April 1, 2008

As I said before, there are no such thing as inalienable rights, only those you have the power to defend. The rights we have now were paid for with the blood of previous generations not bestowed on us by some magic entity.
I have never said that Europeans invented the concept of human rights even though the first recorded democracy was ancient Athens which would be on what continent? What I am saying is that our present concept of rights is most definitely European and the rule of law we follow is most definitely one based on European principles. The Supreme Court does not base its decisions on First Nations law even if it does chose to take it into consideration.

Repeating your mistaken beliefs over and over again does not constitute a convincing argument.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over aboriginal law, or the rights of any First Nation because aboriginal rights exceed law. If what you were saying is true than law would exceed rights.

Wilber · April 1, 2008

Repeating your mistaken beliefs over and over again does not constitute a convincing argument.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over aboriginal law, or the rights of any First Nation because aboriginal rights exceed law. If what you were saying is true than law would exceed rights.

And aboriginal law has no jurisdiction over the Supreme Court which with government is the law of the land. You have no rights other that those which are enshrined in law.

charter.rights · April 1, 2008

And aboriginal law has no jurisdiction over the Supreme Court which with government is the law of the land. You have no rights other that those which are enshrined in law.

Wrong. Aboriginal law usurps Canadian law - as a right. Why do you think those treaties and the Royal Proclamation 1763 are enshrined in the Charter and not in the lessor laws? It is because Aboriginal Law is untouchable. The myth has always been that Canada somehow inherited jurisdiction over aboriginals. They did not and native people have never capitulated.

M.Dancer · April 1, 2008

Wrong. Aboriginal law usurps Canadian law - as a right.

Does that mean slavery and trial by ordeal is legal?

charter.rights · April 1, 2008

Does that mean slavery and trial by ordeal is legal?

Law evolves. Good thing we are not still hanging people for slighting a Lord.

M.Dancer · April 1, 2008

Law evolves. Good thing we are not still hanging people for slighting a Lord.

Could you cite the relevant rulings in native law that abrogated slavery?

DangerMouse · April 1, 2008

Wrong. Aboriginal law usurps Canadian law - as a right. Why do you think those treaties and the Royal Proclamation 1763 are enshrined in the Charter and not in the lessor laws? It is because Aboriginal Law is untouchable. The myth has always been that Canada somehow inherited jurisdiction over aboriginals. They did not and native people have never capitulated.

I think "untouchable" is the wrong word here. It is better to say that Aboriginal law evolved before BNA (now the Canadian Constitution), because it set precedence. The legal term for this is Stare decisis. The general public is unaware of this because the media always makes the aboriginal people look like the "bad-guys." I tell most people not to believe 98.9 % of the "stuff" they read in the media about First Nations People because it's all crap.

The reason why I say untouchable is not the right word is because the governments tried to touch it and made a "great big mess!" :rolleyes:

AngusThermopyle · April 1, 2008

I tell most people not to believe 98.9 % of the "stuff" they read in the media about First Nations People because it's all crap.

So what you are saying is that when we see pictures and footage of them burning stuff in the middle of highways and destroying public property its crap? When buddy dropped his girls off in the field to freeze to death it was just made up crap. When that woman pushed the 17 year old kid in front of the train in Calgary over a 10 dollar drug debt it was crap, not really what happened.

When my friends niece was assaulted and hospitalized by 3 Native youths it was crap? When the guy was beaten to death by about 10 0r 12 Natives in the local bar it was crap? When I see them pushing shopping carts full of booze out of the local liquor store on cheque day its crap?

These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Sure, you're going to get some negative views applied to one and all, thats human nature and we all do it, yourself included. That however is no reason to deny the truth and paint them all as saintly ones who can do no wrong. The fact is that such a view is very far from the truth.

As I've mentioned before I'm very equal opportunity, a bum is a bum is a bum. When I look upon drunken white guys with contempt why would I give a pass to Natives just because they are Native?

I agree there is propaganda applied by both sides, that includes Natives, not just mainstream Canada. Where I disagree is your estimate, I highly doubt that 98.9% as you state, is crap.

jbg · April 2, 2008

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.

If everyone went "back" to their ancestral lands the Great Rift Valley of Africa would be a pretty crowded place.

jbg · April 2, 2008

So what you are saying is that when we see pictures and footage of them burning stuff in the middle of highways and destroying public property its crap? When buddy dropped his girls off in the field to freeze to death it was just made up crap. When that woman pushed the 17 year old kid in front of the train in Calgary over a 10 dollar drug debt it was crap, not really what happened.

Zionist/colonialist/Harperist/Bushist/Yank propaganda.

DangerMouse · April 2, 2008

So what you are saying is that when we see pictures and footage of them burning stuff in the middle of highways and destroying public property its crap? When buddy dropped his girls off in the field to freeze to death it was just made up crap. When that woman pushed the 17 year old kid in front of the train in Calgary over a 10 dollar drug debt it was crap, not really what happened.
When my friends niece was assaulted and hospitalized by 3 Native youths it was crap? When the guy was beaten to death by about 10 0r 12 Natives in the local bar it was crap? When I see them pushing shopping carts full of booze out of the local liquor store on cheque day its crap?

These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Sure, you're going to get some negative views applied to one and all, thats human nature and we all do it, yourself included. That however is no reason to deny the truth and paint them all as saintly ones who can do no wrong. The fact is that such a view is very far from the truth.

As I've mentioned before I'm very equal opportunity, a bum is a bum is a bum. When I look upon drunken white guys with contempt why would I give a pass to Natives just because they are Native?

I agree there is propaganda applied by both sides, that includes Natives, not just mainstream Canada. Where I disagree is your estimate, I highly doubt that 98.9% as you state, is crap.

Angus! Don't believe everything you think! :lol: The media is famous for showing all the negative crap! And I'm not talking about that crap you mentioned above! I was referring to the whole land issue and aboriginal rights. The whole propaganda machine is just one great big friggin lie! Sure propaganda is applied to both sides but it makes crooks like you look saintly--the massmedia shapes lightbulbs like you....there is a definte bias scotty... :lol:

AngusThermopyle · April 2, 2008

but it makes crooks like you look saintly--the massmedia shapes lightbulbs like you....there is a definte bias scotty... laugh.gif

So, lets see, in another thread you stated that I said only Natives play bingo. When I asked you to show me where I said this the silence was deafening. Now you accuse me of being a crook, care to show some proof of this allegation? Thought not.

In other words once again you are just spouting off your usual bullshit without any connection to reality.

It would appear, since you are a proponent of the something for nothing mentality, that you are the one who is deserving of the "crook" moniker. However thats beside the point, I merely thought that your childish lowbrow insulting garbage should be addressed.

As you appear to be severely cognitively challenged I will repeat what I have said many times before. I believe the whole claims issue should be settled in as fair and swift a manner as possible. This does not mean giving everything that is demanded without question, much as you would probably like to see. It means that a solution should be found that meets the needs and requirements of both Natives and Canadians. Once that has happened all ties should be cut and these "sovereign" nations should fend for themselves. Personally I have no desire to see Natives dependent on the greater bulk of society for perpetuity. Far more preferable would be seeing Natives in control of their own destinies. Other issues need to be dealt with and settled, the whole residential school question should be settled once and for all, actually that process is well under way now.

As for propaganda, take a good hard look in the mirror. Most of the propaganda and even outright lies that I see are coming from the Native community and their supporters. In fact one of these supporters who posts on this forum actually slipped so far into dementia that they stated Natives had invented the whell but didn't use it because they saw no practical utility in it. Obviously this statement is so farcical that it doesn't even warrant a serious answer.

Now, back to your somewhat less than insight full posts. Could you show me what I said about Natives and Bingo? Could you show me some proof that I am a crook? Can you show me some citation to prove your allegation that all news reports are slanted against Natives?

An answer to these questions would be appreciated, if none is forthcoming then you merely confirm what most posters with an IQ larger than my shoe size already know, that your information comes from an area most people reserve for the expulsion of solid waste from their bodies.

DangerMouse · April 3, 2008

Wow! You have mighty big feet Angus! :lol:

AngusThermopyle · April 3, 2008

Wow! You have mighty big feet Angus! laugh.gif

Well just as I thought. Another none answer that does not address anything. Okay, run along now, you've affirmed my point and are no longer needed.

Wild Bill · April 3, 2008

Law evolves. Good thing we are not still hanging people for slighting a Lord.

Perhaps you can explain to me how the Iroquois Great Law was applied to the Neutrals? I'd ask a Neutral myself but since there are none alive today after they had been slaughtered by other natives to the last woman and child...

Or will you just change some oral history and claim it trumps any written records?

As a sidebar, I'd be very interested if there are any unpublished polls going on about public sentiment and reaction to native claims as we see these latest more aggressive protest tactics. The natives seem to believe that governments will simply keep "caving in" more and more and that there will be only positive results from such tactics.

I think they are making a naive mistake. Sooner or later governments must face their people at the polls. I suspect that popular support for Six Nations is declining rapidly. If anti-native feeling becomes strong enough it will be a factor in an election. A government doesn't care first for what is right or legal. They first care to stay in government! If it becomes a matter of giving in to native demands or winning an election the natives will lose! No politician will commit political suicide just to "do the right thing".

I guess the bad feelings are going to continue on both sides forever...

AngusThermopyle · April 3, 2008

I guess the bad feelings are going to continue on both sides forever...

I agree with pretty much everything you've said except for the above.

Its pretty much a given that sooner or later somethings gotta give. With enough time and enough illegal activity people in general will reach that breaking point. What will happen then is anybodies guess, I cant say. I don't think it'll be pretty when it does though, history has shown us that time and time again.

charter.rights · April 3, 2008

Perhaps you can explain to me how the Iroquois Great Law was applied to the Neutrals? I'd ask a Neutral myself but since there are none alive today after they had been slaughtered by other natives to the last woman and child...
Or will you just change some oral history and claim it trumps any written records?

As a sidebar, I'd be very interested if there are any unpublished polls going on about public sentiment and reaction to native claims as we see these latest more aggressive protest tactics. The natives seem to believe that governments will simply keep "caving in" more and more and that there will be only positive results from such tactics.

I think they are making a naive mistake. Sooner or later governments must face their people at the polls. I suspect that popular support for Six Nations is declining rapidly. If anti-native feeling becomes strong enough it will be a factor in an election. A government doesn't care first for what is right or legal. They first care to stay in government! If it becomes a matter of giving in to native demands or winning an election the natives will lose! No politician will commit political suicide just to "do the right thing".

I guess the bad feelings are going to continue on both sides forever...

The Neutrals....ah yes.... the Neutrals. There were absorbed into the Iroquois Confederacy, not as nations but as individuals. It is another historical myth that the Iroquois slaughtered them and the Petun.

Oral history as it is accepted by the Supreme Court can be traced and tested. It comes from a number of parallel sources. Often the written documentation complements oral history post contact. Written history as examined also by the Supreme Court is inherently biased since it is often limited to the opinion of one writer. Where agreements have been written down the Supreme Court has ruled that is must be considered WITH the oral record of the agreement, especially when the writer was British (or Canadian) since all agreements are first oral and then confirmed in writing. Where the written document does not match the oral rendition it must be considered to hold less weight in determining what the contents might have been.

It is funny that the louder that objectors to peaceful negotiation get, the more serious the government gets about finding a mutual agreement through negotiations. The Provincial government in Ontario in discussing the Planetex mining injunction as an example, have been clear that consultation and accommodation IS necessary and that First Nations have a right to be consulted fully. They have also agreed that their Mining Act is outdated and must be modified to include the principles of aboriginal title to land. It is also interesting that in negotiations occurring at Deseronto concerning the Culbertson Tract, the federal government has already agreed that 350 acres will be returned immediately,despite assuring the public that they do not give land back and only deal with compensation. Currently, according to the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte they are talking about loss of use for those lands and trying to find ways of buying out current land owners.

This all seems to me that at least in principle the governments are trying to find ways to justice. As to complaining neophytes, few people outside of some hot spots take the complaints seriously seeing that rhetoric and not facts are emerging. Had say Caledonians not enlisted and supported Gary McHale and his many sh#t disturbers coming into the town in the beginning, they might have had some sympathy. But since McHale replaced facts with his type of tainted hype it would appear that those in Haldimand County have lost the battle for Canadian empathy.

You do realize that a few disgruntled occupants of stolen land do not influence or change an election outcome. Sure you might raise a few eyebrows, but as John Tory discovered, you can't elect a government on wild claims of uncontrolled rioting and two-tier policing. Most people see through that bunk and for the most part it turns them off the politics and away from the people spouting it. As far as a federal election goes your threats are even less valid since right now the Liberals doing nothing with a lame leader and they are still running neck and nec with the Conservatives in most polls. This would suggest that the Tories policies are not in favour of the the majority of Canadians and that it is unlikely there would be much change if an election were held tomorrow. And if it was, settling lands claims, or even dicussing them would be far away from the political arena. Canadians in general are interested more what the government has accomplished and not what it hasn't. Land claim reconciliation is left for bureaucrats and implemented processes in order to keep them far away from public discussion and scrutiny. Land reclamations I believe are going to be a trend for the next many years as frustration in First Nation people festers.

So while I appreciate your limited view of what is actually happening as opposed to what you wish would happen, it isn't close to the reality of the change happening in Canada. Even as late statistically with immigrant populations increasing, it is apparent that Canada is more involved in accommodating different interests than it is in trying to conflict or stop them. At some point in time the injustices of the past have to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. That's the reality. Complaining advances nothing but pettiness and ill conceived attacks. You would do better if you were talking to a wall since in the scheme of things it can't talk back and point out the flaws in your thinking.

Edited April 3, 2008 by charter.rights

jbg · April 4, 2008

Oral history as it is accepted by the Supreme Court can be traced and tested. It comes from a number of parallel sources. Often the written documentation complements oral history post contact. Written history as examined also by the Supreme Court is inherently biased since it is often limited to the opinion of one writer. Where agreements have been written down the Supreme Court has ruled that is must be considered WITH the oral record of the agreement, especially when the writer was British (or Canadian) since all agreements are first oral and then confirmed in writing. Where the written document does not match the oral rendition it must be considered to hold less weight in determining what the contents might have been.

A Court's sole authority, at the end of the day, is moral. If a Court strays too far from public will no one will obey it. Andrew Jackson once famously defied a Supreme Court ruling relating to the rights of the Indians (now FN's) saying "the Supreme Court has made its ruling, now let it enforce it".

Wilber · April 4, 2008

The Neutrals....ah yes.... the Neutrals. There were absorbed into the Iroquois Confederacy, not as nations but as individuals. It is another historical myth that the Iroquois slaughtered them and the Petun.

The telling phrase here is "not as nations but as indviduals". Not exactly what "FN's" are asking for.

charter.rights · April 4, 2008

The telling phrase here is "not as nations but as indviduals". Not exactly what "FN's" are asking for.

Disease and encroachment by the Iroquois diminished the Neutrals and Petun effectiveness as nations. The remaining Wendat had already left with the French for Montreal also being decimated by disease and encroachment. The Neutrals and the Petun knew that they would not have survived without the Confederacy help and since they were no longer effective as individual nations they were allowed into the confederacy under the Senecas. They were essentially adopted into their new nation just like the Cat Nation some 15-20 years earlier.

Wild Bill · April 6, 2008

Disease and encroachment by the Iroquois diminished the Neutrals and Petun effectiveness as nations. The remaining Wendat had already left with the French for Montreal also being decimated by disease and encroachment. The Neutrals and the Petun knew that they would not have survived without the Confederacy help and since they were no longer effective as individual nations they were allowed into the confederacy under the Senecas. They were essentially adopted into their new nation just like the Cat Nation some 15-20 years earlier.

Do you have any sources for this view?

You see, I googled "neutral indians" and got a long list of links. I started going through them and didn't find any that supported your claim of peaceful integration. Some did illustrate how the Neutrals were hardly saints themselves and a case could be made that they provoked their own fate.

Perhaps I should just orally make something up that feels good.

You know, perhaps some old farts on the Supreme Court were politically correct enough to buy into this oral history thing but common sense on the part of the rest of us says it totally depends on the integrity of those claiming the particular oral history version. Even then, memory is rarely accurate over generations and centuries.

Sure is convenient, though!. Might be a good thing in the long run. It forces Canadians to look at their Supreme Court and be less naive. This can only result in a change in attitudes at voting time. One more straw on the camel's back, as it were.

charter.rights · April 6, 2008

Do you have any sources for this view?
You see, I googled "neutral indians" and got a long list of links. I started going through them and didn't find any that supported your claim of peaceful integration. Some did illustrate how the Neutrals were hardly saints themselves and a case could be made that they provoked their own fate.

Perhaps I should just orally make something up that feels good.

You know, perhaps some old farts on the Supreme Court were politically correct enough to buy into this oral history thing but common sense on the part of the rest of us says it totally depends on the integrity of those claiming the particular oral history version. Even then, memory is rarely accurate over generations and centuries.

Sure is convenient, though!. Might be a good thing in the long run. It forces Canadians to look at their Supreme Court and be less naive. This can only result in a change in attitudes at voting time. One more straw on the camel's back, as it were.

"'Common sense" is a collection of prejudices you acquire before the age of 18" Albert Einstein

Those Supreme Court Justices made the legal ruling based on the principle of "evidence". It had nothing to do with political correctness and more to do with the principles of law. Your sour grapes neither changes that fact or diminishes, in a legal argument or a moral one. Your belief that things will change after an election is pretty naive all in itself since law has nothing to do with emotional instability of parliament's constituents.