International bridge shut down

[Smallc]

I'll look it up tomorrow.

I'm sure there is something, but I can't find the court ruling and I can't find any non propaganda like information. Anything that is found will also contradict with the Indian act and the charter, so I'm really leaning towards my original position. I would have to be convinced..and it would take a lot to convince me.

[g_bambino]

I won't wast my time furnishing links when you wouldn't read them anyway. I cited my sources. You want more information, I suggest you go look them up.

Ah, the "You back up my argument for me" argument. A classic.

[g_bambino]

Nope. Sovereign territories. Royal Proclamation 1763.

Royal Proclamation, indeed.

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.--We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure. that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida. or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. as described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

[Smallc]

Yes...and even the land not covered under that is covered under the Indian Act, Section 36. I don't see much support for his end of things.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...and even the land not covered under that is covered under the Indian Act, Section 36. I don't see much support for his end of things.

Then the feds and provinces should have no trouble dispatching comprehensive and specific claims in court.

Specific claims arise when there is an outstanding historical grievance between a First Nation and the Crown that relates to an unfulfilled obligation of a treaty or another agreement, or a breach of statutory responsibilities by the Crown. Canada is committed to honouring its lawful obligations to First Nations.

Being "covered" by the Indian Act is not a license to ignore such claims.

Edited June 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

No one said it was, but this has nothing to do with claims. This has to do with the fact that they are blocking the implementation of mandatory federal legislation.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one said it was, but this has nothing to do with claims. This has to do with the fact that they are blocking the implementation of mandatory federal legislation.

Mandatory for who? You can't have it both ways.

[Smallc]

Mandatory for who? You can't have it both ways.

What? I'm not trying to have it both ways. They're part of Canada. I said either they are are they aren't not kinda sorta. No one has come forward with anything that shows that they aren't and given the governments definitive position, I think it's safe to assume that they are part of Canada. That means they must comply with the law.

The whole point of proving that they were under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act and as a result the Government of Canada in the name of the Crown (even if they are not directly under the Crown) was to prove that they are part of Canada. I want them to be.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

What? I'm not trying to have it both ways. They're part of Canada. I said either they are are they aren't not kinda sorta. No one has come forward with anything that shows that they aren't and given the governments definitive position, I think it's safe to assume that they are part of Canada. That means they must comply with the law.

It's not that simple.....the "law" isn't suppose to be arbitrarily enforced (i.e. ignoring comprehensive and specific claims when convenient to do so).

The whole point of proving that they were under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act and as a result the Government of Canada in the name of the Crown (even if they are not directly under the Crown) was to prove that they are part of Canada. I want them to be.

Your personal desires are irrelevant....it is the interests of the parties that are at stake. The "Crown" has failed to disposition comprehensive and specific claims in a timely manner, and has corrupted the very process for doing so in its favor.

Edited June 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Yes, it has, and as I've already said, work is being done to correct it. More land claims are settled all of the time.

[Smallc]

I think I know what it is...You just want Canada to be as broke as the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it has, and as I've already said, work is being done to correct it. More land claims are settled all of the time.

Fast enough for you, but not the Mohawk Nation / Councils. So "work is being done" to speed things up!

Until then, the burden is on the feds/province to consider their armed border location in the face of such claims, regardless of "illegal" blockades.

[charter.rights]

What? I'm not trying to have it both ways. They're part of Canada. I said either they are are they aren't not kinda sorta. No one has come forward with anything that shows that they aren't and given the governments definitive position, I think it's safe to assume that they are part of Canada. That means they must comply with the law.

The whole point of proving that they were under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act and as a result the Government of Canada in the name of the Crown (even if they are not directly under the Crown) was to prove that they are part of Canada. I want them to be.

See there is the flaw in your logic. You want natives to prove they are not part of Canada. I gave you the lead to the answer - The Mitchell Map 1757 and the Royal Proclamation 1763. It is up to you to prove they are.

Mohawks have never capitulated nor surrendered their land or their sovereignty to Canada or the Crown. Under the UN it is illegal for a country to assume jurisdiction over another nation without their consent. The burden of proof is yours.

The Indian Act was invented but it does not address Moahwks. No where does it say that Mohawks are subject to it. You are lost on your own myths.

[Smallc]

And you have no proof of anything you say. I have provided proof. Every report calls it a reserve and all reserves are under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. To suggest that the reserve is not Canadian or US soil when a border runs through the middle of it is just silly.

[charter.rights]

And you have no proof of anything you say. I have provided proof. Every report calls it a reserve and all reserves are under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. To suggest that the reserve is not Canadian or US soil when a border runs through the middle of it is just silly.

I have all the proof the Crown needs. Our Justice group recognizes and affirms their sovereignty.

All Canadian land sits beneath Aboriginal title. The treaties that were made did not give up rights to the land but created a concept of sharing the land. Under the Royal Proclamation 1763 none of the land could be alienated to any British subject for any reason. If land was transferred to the Crown it had to be done through a specific process. In the case of Ontario and Six Nations jurisdiction, there has never been any surrender or treaty, or process that allowed land to change hands, or for Canada to assume title. Even the Haldimand Proclamation 1784 was an act to secure a specific tract of land from the same kind of encroachment the IIroquois were experiencing in the south. The government could not have bought land form the Mississauga since the British recognized in 1763 that the territory was all Six Nations territory. So the Mississauga were merely paid a traveling fee to relocated to their homeland north of Superior.

When you find the surrender of Ontario by Six Nations - especially before 1784 where they surrendered to the Mississauga, which allowed the Mississauga to surrender to the Crown - then provide the links. I'm sure a number of judges and Supreme Court justices would be interested.

The fact is Six Nations never surrender and their territories have always remained separate and independent from Canada.

The assumption of jurisdiction is myth at least in the case of the Mohawks and most of the nations in BC.

[g_bambino]

And you have no proof of anything you say.

And he never will, Smallc. Trying to get logic and evidence out of Charter is like trying to have a debate with a coffee pot. Though... even in its silence, a coffee pot makes some sense... But, I digress. The point is: save yourself the hassle. You can put forward the actual text of the Royal Proclamation 10,000 times and he'll still say it says entirely something else. Fogeddaboudit.

[Borg]

The average lifespan of an Iroquois citizen before contact was about 120 years old.

Borg

[Argus]

You do realize that according to the SCoC oral histories have more legitimacy than British written records. Do you know why?

I realize that some bleeding heart liberals with only slight understanding of law whom the Liberal Party appointed as judges have recognized oral histories. I, however, do not. I barely recognize the rulings of judges. You know why? Because your ancesters were illiterate savages, while most of the judges are ideologically driven idiots.

[Griz]

Charter knows the issues the rest of you are babblin fools when it comes to aboriginal issues. Borg...why did you laugh about the life expectancy? That was common amongst many cultures not just aboriginals? Many lived over a century when there was a lot less poisins in the environment. The fact that you laughed says a lot about your mentality as a little-kid right winger SmallC I know you're trying but you still don't get it. Try to reverse the situation. What if aboriginals showed up in Europe and the UK centuries ago smelling like hell--just as the European and UK Boat People smelled when they got here--and when the aboriginals got to Europe and UK and said OK Great smelling Europeans and Brits--this is the new law and now you "must" live by it? You are no longer nice scented Europeans and Brits but you now must live like an NDN? What are you going to do? Hope you get the point? Charter knows the issues--listen and you might learn

[Smallc]

You don't get it. We all live here today. We all occupy this space. We can't keep focusing on evils of the past (we can never forget them though). What happened in the past was wrong, though at the time we didn't know any better. The people that were here were far less advanced technologically than the Europeans that came....that reality can't be ignored either. What happened could not have happened in reverse.

And 120 years...please....that is highly unlikely.

This situation needs to be resolved for the good of all people in Canada. You sir need to learn tolerance just as much as the rest of the people. You also have to learn to look at history through a less coloured view.

Charter has no proof for much of what he says, and until he provides some, I take what he says as fiction.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Smallc

[Borg]

You don't get it. We all live here today. We all occupy this space. We can't keep focusing on evils of the past (we can never forget them though). What happened in the past was wrong, though at the time we didn't know any better. The people that were here were far less advanced technologically than the Europeans that came....that reality can't be ignored either. What happened could not have happened in reverse.

And 120 years...please....that is highly unlikely.

This situation needs to be resolved for the good of all people in Canada. You sir need to learn tolerance just as much as the rest of the people. You also have to learn to look at history through a less coloured view.

Charter has no proof for much of what he says, and until he provides some, I take what he says as fiction.

Well, well - the kid born into money - and I - actually agree

Well done - perhaps there is hope for you yet

Borg

[Smallc]

I wasn't born into money. I live in an upper middle class family. My parents have worked 60 hours a week for years so that we can have what we do. Now it's my turn to do something to make this world better.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I wasn't born into money. I live in an upper middle class family. My parents have worked 60 hours a week for years so that we can have what we do. Now it's my turn to do something to make this world better.

How do you plan on making the world a better place?

[Borg]

I wasn't born into money. I live in an upper middle class family. My parents have worked 60 hours a week for years so that we can have what we do. Now it's my turn to do something to make this world better.

Well, get out and do something in a few third world countries before you get settled into the entitled Canadian way of life

Big world and lots of parochial folks come from Canada

Dog eat dog world and canadians judge those countries on their own values instead of the values at hand in the country they discuss.

Try doing a couple of years at school in Israel - you will actually enjoy it (very, very international student body) provided nothing comes over the horizon from a neighbour - and while you are there do some work for an NGO or two in the west bank or Gaza - then off to Sudan for a year - then the Congo - then Afghanistan or Iraq - lots of work available - some physical and some cerebral - either provides a heck of a reality check if you live outside the confines of wire and fences and armed guards.

You might try Papua New Guinea as well - risky for a white guy in the back country and not recommended for females - but very nice part of the world if you can keep the jungle and natives from getting you.

Remember when you travel in these places - no matter how nice and respectful you are - you will be the minority and there will be more than a few who wish you harm no matter what good you are doing

In some places you may be required to wear personal protection and pack weapon or have close protection - and no you will not be military - but it is exciting and challenging. You will become very aware of your surroundings.

Study hard and keep that typically closed canadian mind open to what you see and do.

If you are really into some excitement - do Columbia - lots of work their that is legal for an NGO and then hit South Africa and Malaysia.

Once you have done this you will have been international for about 7 -10 years.

Then you will have a little hair and tough skin on you and a lot more experience to help you change that world for the better.

I recommend the above only for males - if you are female I can work you up a plan that will be relatively safe and almost accomplish the same thing.

Bet you do not do even a small part of it - when you are older you might regret that - then again as a canadian you might not.

After all is said and done - then visit the nice parts of the world as you build your law career - you will find you think quite differently about that career and those nice places after your initial experiences.

Borg

Edited June 6, 2009 by Borg

[Oleg Bach]

The Borg has spoken - boy you are a benevolent and kind fellow - good work!