Racism on the reserve

[charter.rights]

Mhmmm...then why is it that I live in Southern Ontario and don't pay taxes to Six nations?

The native populations in North America were pretty plainly subjugated. You need only look and see who occupies the vast majority of territory to see that. You can sugar-coat that all you want, but the Six Nations had the choice to ally themselves with the Crown or deal with the USA.

The fact that they have to pay suggests that the property is, for all extents and purposes, owned. You can call it whatever you want.

Actually no. Six Nations was negotiating with the French at the same time they were negotiating with the British just prior to 1760. The British knew there was a real chance that Six Nations would ally with France, and if that had of happened it would have turned the whole North America settlement on its end.

No land is not "owned". They don't have to pay but do so to avoid years of court. You are only paid for your inconvenience, not your land. You have no property rights.

[charter.rights]

Yes...good for all those who live under the protection of the crown

Whose lands...?

Nope it doesn't work that way. There was an agreement that if Six Nations (and others) sided with the British in the American Revolution, they would be rewarded and protected from retaliation from American forces. Thus land was not "reserved" in the sense that reserves are set aside today, they were recognized as exclusive Six Nations lands where all settlement, occupation and use was prohibited under British law. And since the British had no authority of a sovereign Six Nations, the Royal Proclamatino was solely aimed at British subjects, not Six Nations.

Mitchell Map 1757. Six Nations lands. All of southern Ontario.

Now if you can find where Six Nations surrendered any of it after 1763, then you might have a case. But you won't find it because it was never surrendered and still belongs to Six Nations jurisdiction.

[M.Dancer]

Mitchell Map 1757. Six Nations lands. All of southern Ontario.

I find it amusing you think a map is a legal deed and title. If anything it lessons tha claims of the 1st nations as canada does bot recognize the right of conquest.

|Can show me where the previous owners ceded lands?

Other than their preserved scalps I mean....

[kimmy]

Actually it was a success. It made international news.

yeah, too bad all anybody can recall of the protests is that some thugs smashed shop windows and threatened tourists.

The games were among the most successful and popular events in Canadian history, and even the Four Host Nations whose "stolen lands" the games were held on were ecstatic about the outcome.

I congratulate the protestors on their success in "resisting" the games, in the same way that I applaud Rahim Jaffer's success in bringing awareness to the issue of impaired driving.

-k

[charter.rights]

yeah, too bad all anybody can recall of the protests is that some thugs smashed shop windows and threatened tourists.

The games were among the most successful and popular events in Canadian history, and even the Four Host Nations whose "stolen lands" the games were held on were ecstatic about the outcome.

I congratulate the protestors on their success in "resisting" the games, in the same way that I applaud Rahim Jaffer's success in bringing awareness to the issue of impaired driving.

-k

You don't get it...again. The point of the protests and the boycotts were to raise international attention to the lies Canada has been telling the world about the on-going genocidal policies of the Conservative government. It did just that and so it is a smashing success.

Things like these are never done quickly or forcefully, but persistence pays the biggest dividends. The message got out about residential schools and the failure of government to properly consult and accommodate in violation of Canadian law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada is being put to the test and it is only a matter of time before the government has no choice but to accept and fully implement the Declaration.

So yes it was a perfect success. In spite of the sell-outs who call themselves leaders.

Edited March 3, 2010 by charter.rights

[kimmy]

You don't get it...again. The point of the protests and the boycotts were to raise international attention to the lies Canada has been telling the world about the on-going genocidal policies of the Conservative government. It did just that and so it is a smashing success.

Things like these are never done quickly or forcefully, but persistence pays the biggest dividends. The message got out about residential schools and the failure of government to properly consult and accommodate in violation of Canadian law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada is being put to the test and it is only a matter of time before the government has no choice but to accept and fully implement the Declaration.

So yes it was a perfect success. In spite of the sell-outs who call themselves leaders.

ROFL.

Sorry, I've taken up too much of your time already.

I'll let you get back to handing out eviction notices to Torontonians.

-k

[Shwa]

To think otherwise is only fooling yourself. Feel free to if you must.

Really?

Well a few posts ago I asked you to cite Canadian jurisprudence that gives you ownership of your land that you live on. Instead we get a clumsy dodge. I should have expected as much from the tone of your writing. Hot air and fairytales and nothing more. "Feel free if you must." pffff

[Wild Bill]

Mhmmm...then why is it that I live in Southern Ontario and don't pay taxes to Six nations?

The native populations in North America were pretty plainly subjugated. You need only look and see who occupies the vast majority of territory to see that. You can sugar-coat that all you want, but the Six Nations had the choice to ally themselves with the Crown or deal with the USA.

The fact that they have to pay suggests that the property is, for all extents and purposes, owned. You can call it whatever you want.

Round and round they go, MB. They will never concede your point. You see, they are not dealing with reason. They are trying to win by changing perception.

One of the basic tenets that has evolved with international law over the centuries is that a sovereign nation is one that has the power to define and enforce its jurisdiction over its territory. That's why we are seeing such a flap about areas like the Northwest Passage. Since we have such a vague presence in the high Arctic other countries are challenging our claims. That is the premise behind Harper's declaration of "We use it or we lose it!" Hence all the intentions of putting deep water ports and military bases into the region.

The First Nations have no such power to enforce sovereignity over Canada as a whole, no matter what any document, map or long forgotten treaty may say. Their population and resources are just too small. They might be able to raise enough of a ruckus over a reserve or two but the idea of laying claim to all or most of Canada is just ludicrous. They cannot enforce it. Even if they got some third world Duchy of Grand Fenwick to recognize their claim on the international level they would need SOME OTHER COUNTRY to help them war with Canada to enforce their claim and that just isn't going to happen.

Such claims seem mere technicolour dreams but they do serve one purpose. If they can change the perception of enough Canadians that at least some part of their claims are valid then slowly they can make wins, a little bit at a time.

Like Caledonia. Rumours are strong that the McGuinty government is going to just hand them the Douglas Creek Estates. The natives will get a $65 million dollar chunk of land. All the violence of the protests will be forgotten, except for those who actually live in Caledonia.

The actual legalities will cease to be debated. The protesters will have won the land so the point will become moot. Their tactics will have worked. It would only be logical to pick another area and do the same thing.

No need for negotiations. No worries about being militarily outclassed. All you need are politicians not prepared to stand up to you!

Was it Goebbels who said that in order to get the people to believe you must feed them a BIG lie? I know it was Carl Sagan who said that you can tell people that there are billions and billions of stars in our galaxy and they will believe you without question but show them a bench with a sign that says "Wet Paint" and they have to touch it!

[M.Dancer]

I find it most amusing that the document CR and shwa use to ground their arguments clearly saysthat land set aside for the indians is under the sovereignty of the crown.

I gues they just don't get it.

[charter.rights]

I find it most amusing that the document CR and shwa use to ground their arguments clearly saysthat land set aside for the indians is under the sovereignty of the crown.

I gues they just don't get it.

Actually it doesn't. It is defined as "Indian Lands" and as such all British subjects were prohibited from settling, occupying or otherwise using any part. As well settler could not purchase land and ONLY the Crown could negotiated a surrender. That is....a surrender of land from one sovereign nation (and in the case of southern Ontario that means Six Nations) to another sovereign nation (The Crown).

What you don't get is that taking single treaties and picking them apart to suit your limited perspective is not legal, nor is is accurate. Instead the Supreme Court continues to look at all the jurisprudence, treaties, discussions and agreements in determining the rightful owners. A surrender has not taken place unless it has been presented to the community at a public meeting for that specific purpose. Such meetings had to be duly recorded and copies of surrender documents had to be signed by the Chiefs and delivered to the Band and the Crown for a permanent record. No such documents, public meetings or surrenders ever took place between Six Nations and the Crown. That leaves the land under the sovereign jurisdiction of Six Nations to this day, just as it appears on the Mitchell Map 1757 and the Royal Proclamation Map 1763.

You just don't get it.

[M.Dancer]

.... just as it appears on the Mitchell Map 1757 and the Royal Proclamation Map 1763.

You just don't get it.

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.

Feel free to use the Crown's land. Unless of course you reject the proclamation...

Edited March 3, 2010 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

A surrender has not taken place unless it has been presented to the community at a public meeting for that specific purpose. Such meetings had to be duly recorded and copies of surrender documents had to be signed by the Chiefs and delivered to the Band and the Crown for a permanent record. No such documents, public meetings or surrenders ever took place between Six Nations and the Crown.

You just don't get it.

Apparently you have swallowed the hook and line....thinking perhaps all of southern ontario, whose dominion rests with the crown belongs to the Six nations....other tribes may disagree..

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/pubs/twil/trmis/trmis-eng.asp

[Mr.Canada]

charter.rights you keep quoting agreements from 100+ years before Canada was even a nation of its own. I don't see how these agreements can be bonding to the country of Canada as Canada wasn't a country until 1867. These documents you keep quoting are from the 1700's. Maybe your issue is with the U.K.

So Canada never signed these agreemewnts at all and had nothing to do with them whatsoever. Canada wasn't a country until 1867. I don't see how they can be binding to Canada.

[charter.rights]

charter.rights you keep quoting agreements from 100+ years before Canada was even a nation of its own. I don't see how these agreements can be bonding to the country of Canada as Canada wasn't a country until 1867. These documents you keep quoting are from the 1700's. Maybe your issue is with the U.K.

So Canada never signed these agreemewnts at all and had nothing to do with them whatsoever. Canada wasn't a country until 1867. I don't see how they can be binding to Canada.

Actually we did. The rights derived form the Royal Proclamation 173 were entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at the insistence of Queen Elizabeth. That makes a 257 year old document present day law and is the reason that the Supreme Court rules most often in favour of First Nations.

[charter.rights]

Apparently you have swallowed the hook and line....thinking perhaps all of southern ontario, whose dominion rests with the crown belongs to the Six nations....other tribes may disagree..

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/pubs/twil/trmis/trmis-eng.asp

There is not fantasy in this. It is the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Mr.Canada]

When will all this qq'ing end?

What is it that the natives want?

[M.Dancer]

There is not fantasy in this. It is the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Is it now..how's that working for you....with the rent and all?

[g_bambino]

These documents you keep quoting are from the 1700's. Maybe your issue is with the U.K.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is a part of our constitution. Then again, CR seems to wish to ignore that particular document, so, nevermind.

[charter.rights]

Is it now..how's that working for you....with the rent and all?

A $65 Million dollar property is going to be returned to Six Nations...you know...the one they reclaimed in Caledonia...

Another $100 million property a Deseronto, and a $55 million dollar settlement at Akwesanse last year for flooded lands. And a $125 million offer is on the table for Six Nations for some flooded lands and other farms. Plus the Mining Act was changed, the Criminal Code has been modified by Supreme Court rulings to accommodate First Nations.

I think it is going rather well for them, don't you? And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg. More is in negotiation...like the Mohawk corridor from Montreal to Windsor, CN owes the Mohawks big money for failing to hold up their end of agreements made 100 years ago.

Mr. Canada. It doesn't end. This is just the beginning.

[Smallc]

The part that you don't seem to admit is that those lands are all still within Canada, even if no longer in the jurisdiction of the provinces.

[Shwa]

Round and round they go, MB. They will never concede your point. You see, they are not dealing with reason. They are trying to win by changing perception.

Perhaps. But that is such a simplistic explanation. Especially when I have only asked for citations of Canadian jurisprudence that prove you own the land you live on, as stated by Mr. Moonbox. I am not sure what the delay is in that request. I mean, considering the idea is felt so strongly, then surely there must be unequivocal evidence of this statement within Canadian law. Now asking for evidence is entirely reasonable is it not?

Well? Where is it?

[M.Dancer]

No such documents, public meetings or surrenders ever took place between Six Nations and the Crown. That leaves the land under the sovereign jurisdiction of Six Nations to this day, just as it appears on the Mitchell Map 1757 and the Royal Proclamation Map 1763.

*chortle*

A new treaty was negotiated on 9 May 1781, where the Mississaugas (the Six Nations had relinquished their claim to this land) accepted "300 suits of clothing as payment for a four-mile strip along the Niagara River from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie". Later in 1787, this area was expanded to include Niagara Township, and portions of Stamford, Willoughby and Bertie Townships.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/p6.gif/image_view

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/p8.gif/image_view

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/p9.gif/image_view

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/p11.gif/image_view

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/p45.gif/image_view

[M.Dancer]

Fact is, not only does not all of southerna ontario belong to the 6 sino nations, it never did.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/aboriginalpeoples/circa1823

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps. But that is such a simplistic explanation. Especially when I have only asked for citations of Canadian jurisprudence that prove you own the land you live on, as stated by Mr. Moonbox. I am not sure what the delay is in that request. I mean, considering the idea is felt so strongly, then surely there must be unequivocal evidence of this statement within Canadian law. Now asking for evidence is entirely reasonable is it not?

Well? Where is it?

Once again, diversion.

My point was about the very definition of sovereignty and how the First Nations cannot meet it. This makes all your legalisms moot.

So why should I bother?

[Moonbox]

Really?

Well a few posts ago I asked you to cite Canadian jurisprudence that gives you ownership of your land that you live on. Instead we get a clumsy dodge.

A clumsy dodge huh? The principles of property ownership have clearly escaped you, so I tried to simplify it for you. If the law recognizes that I own my house and nobody can use my property other than me, it is reasonable to assume that I own it. If people can only take my land by 'paying' me fairly for it, this also reinforces the idea that I 'own' it. If the legal system in Canada and Ontario uphold these rights for me, that pretty much seals the deal. That is how things work here.

The fact that I did not waste inordinate amounts of time searching the library or internet for information that was irrelevant to the truth stated above does not make me wrong. It means you are living in LALAland.