International bridge shut down

[benny]

Nothing relating to Aboriginal Title is in dispute of the Indian Act.

A real act will put everything on the table everyday.

[Smallc]

Ahem...the Indian Act itself has been in dispute for many years....that's why Canada changes it.

And yet the particular section in question still stands.

[benny]

And yet the particular section in question still stands.

That is why Natives still do standoffs.

[charter.rights]

And yet the particular section in question still stands.

Hmmm.... you don't think that is the reason that Lands Claims go to court and to avoid losing in court the government created the Specific Land Claims process? And then again it could be why Six Nations' claims are not subject to the Specific Lands Claims process and why they are contemplating goign back to court to sue the government for settlement....

You don't know very much about lands claims issues either, do you.....

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet the particular section in question still stands.

So does the word "Aboriginal".

[Smallc]

Yes, it does, but because of the way things were worked out, the federal act must be called the Indian Act.

[Smallc]

You don't know very much about lands claims issues either, do you.....

You seem to know very little about reality, but that's ok.

The simple fact is, no matter who holds title, those lands are, as of now, both a reserve and Canadian soil. The aboriginal people that live their have control over the lands, but they are still under the jurisdiction of Crown, and so they must follow the lasw that are set out for them by the Crown. That is the situation today. Unless you have evidence to show that it isn't, then I'll have to go with the facts that I see presented in front of me.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it does, but because of the way things were worked out, the federal act must be called the Indian Act.

They can call it whatever they want, but the courts will no longer roll over on specific and general claims hiding behind the "Act".

Advantage Mohawk Nation.....

[benny]

So does the word "Aboriginal".

Common names can survive the death of their original owners.

[Smallc]

They can call it whatever they want, but the courts will no longer roll over on specific and general claims hiding behind the "Act".

Advantage Mohawk Nation.....

The Constitution dictates how the aboriginal peoples of Canada are to be refered to by the government of Canada, so no, they can't call it whatever they want. Also, the courts have not overturned federal law as far as I'm aware.

[benny]

The Constitution dictates how the aboriginal peoples of Canada are to be refered to by the government of Canada, so no, they can't call it whatever they want. Also, the courts have not overturned federal law as far as I'm aware.

Don't be so fetishistic about the rules of law.

[charter.rights]

The Constitution dictates how the aboriginal peoples of Canada are to be refered to by the government of Canada, so no, they can't call it whatever they want. Also, the courts have not overturned federal law as far as I'm aware.

Wrong again!

Last year the BC Court of Appeal threw out the Indian Act definition of an "Indian" and told the federal government to change it and gave them a year to do so. Other parts of the Indian Act have been struck down as well over the years and the application of the Charter will see lots more changed by future challenges.

Indian status case going to Supreme Court

"....Chuck Strahl said the government would not appeal and intended to rewrite the definition of Indian status over the summer and introduce amendments to the Indian Act this fall."

One more for the natives.....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Give the natives a dozen or so! When that is done, give them self government and be done with this issue once and for all. Settle the land claims, hand over the titles if they have to, or more to the point let them do what the government has done and let them collect the taxes and supply the services as the government does, but SOLVE the damed problem NOW!

[Smallc]

Wrong again!

Since that's not at all what I said, I can't have been wrong. The Constitution refers to Indians as such, and so the Federal government must call them that, no matter who the definition encompasses.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since that's not at all what I said, I can't have been wrong. The Constitution refers to Indians as such, and so the Federal government must call them that, no matter who the definition encompasses.

Not true, as it gets even stranger with the government term "Visible Minority", which specifically segregates the term 'Aboriginals', 'Status Indians', 'Non Status Indians', 'Metis', and 'Inuit' from other classifications.

[Oleg Bach]

I am an invisable inferiourity...

[charter.rights]

Since that's not at all what I said, I can't have been wrong. The Constitution refers to Indians as such, and so the Federal government must call them that, no matter who the definition encompasses.

You are still wrong.

The Charter (Constitution) refers to people as "aboriginal people", not "Indians". It is only the Indian Act that refers to native people as "Indians".

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.(17)

35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principal that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

( the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item.(18)

While Sect. 35 defines aboriginal peoples as "Indians, Inuit and Metis", there is no further definition except that defined by the Indian Act which has been thrown out by the BC Court of Appeal. However, aboriginal people also includes non-status "Indians" which the Indian Act does not...yet...but will after the Minister changes the definition....

[Smallc]

Constitution Act, 1867...take a look.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Aboriginal and Indian doesn't necessarily refer to the same thing either.

[Smallc]

Oh, and I'm done arguing about this. It's obviously going nowhere.

[benny]

Oh, and I'm done arguing about this. It's obviously going nowhere.

Reserve your judgment; we are only at page 12!

[charter.rights]

Constitution Act, 1867...take a look.

As mentioned before, Mohawk Territories do not fall into the category of "reserves" and instead are sovereign territories not affected by the Canadian Constitution. In fact they come under the Great Law - The Haudenosaunee Constitution. No Mohawk Territory has ever been surrendered except some which the US bought in New York after the American Revolution.

[charter.rights]

Oh, and I'm done arguing about this. It's obviously going nowhere.

Yes...good....you fall apart the minute you get the real facts presented to you...anyway....

[benny]

As mentioned before, Mohawk Territories do not fall into the category of "reserves" and instead are sovereign territories not affected by the Canadian Constitution. In fact they come under the Great Law - The Haudenosaunee Constitution. No Mohawk Territory has ever been surrendered except some which the US bought in New York after the American Revolution.

What is important to understand, but hard to explain, is that the best ethics is to never surrender before the law, meaning to never compromise, or give way on, one's desire.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DCjQfHEJP...lt&resnum=4

[jbg]

Even a beggar can make a lot of money if only s/he takes possession of the busiest downtown street corner.

Another bright comment.