Cottages for sale on Native Lands? Serious Question.

[Wild Bill]

The violent acts that might have occurred form time to time were not all the protesters. And there is still lots of doubt in a number of the confrontations about who really started them. But that is not all the protesters.

Bill. In 2008, 80% of Canadians believe the government should settle claims with First Nations. So you don't speak for Canadians, and it appears you don't even represent a substantial minority of them.

You have made the claim about the violence before. You would have us believe that its possible that Caledonia townsfolk crept ninja-like through the native protest lines to reach and blow up an electrical transformer, blacking out the area for several days, in order to make the protesters look bad.

The very idea is flatly absurd! That's worthy of a 9/11 conspiracy theory that the Americans blew up their own Twin Towers, or that they never put a man on the Moon.

You may be trying to establish some lawyer-trick "reasonable doubt" but no one who lives in the real world would ever believe it.

As for your claim that 80% of Canadians want to settle land claims, you're moving the goal posts AGAIN! This seems to be one of your standard approaches to debate. I have never said that I have any issue with native land claims! My differences are solely and only with protester TACTICS! I don't agree with attacking innocents or targeting them for their race, whether they're white, native or Martian!

I say again, if the protesters had chosen to block roads into Queens Park I might have supported them. If they ran ATV's through McGuinty's back yard I would have cheered them on!

Most of what the SN protesters did directly and negatively impacted the residents of the town, first and foremost! That is what I find unforgiveable and no amount of damage control propaganda can change history. Sometimes your attempts to twist what occurred are worthy of Goebbels.

The SN protesters wronged their townsfolk neighbours simply because they were white and they were handy! It's as simple as that! That's why I compare them to the KKK. It was never the townspeople who had the power in their hands to settle land claims. The protesters had no problem however targeting them first.

Can you name ANY protest action against specific individuals in government by the protesters at SN? Did they block Dianne Finley's driveway?

Two wrongs never make a right! Tell it to Galtieri!

Edited July 14, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Shwa]

What we have a situation where the majority has the power strip all rights aways from natives at any time by changing the constitution. Fortunately, (for natives at least), the majority does not wish to resort this option and is willing to live with the various petty injustices created by these historical agreements. That complacency would disappear if the burden of these agreements got too high for the majority to bear. My hope is we will never have to deal with a nasty constitutional battle like that and I suspect the SCC will be careful with its rulings because of that risk.

Your Leviathan argument fails in that for the Leviathan to be effective it must eat itself first. It would have to de-constitute itself, etc., etc., go read Hobbes.

That is why I say the contract-is-a-contract argument is largely nonsense as far a natives are concerned. What we have are never ending political negotiations between native and the non-native citizens.

The fact of the contract-is-a-contract argument is that it is a legal one that has real bearing on present circumstances in all negotiations between Natives and the Governments.

[Shwa]

Hey, most of the time as individuals we are ALL ineffectual! The important point is that TimG is not the only Canadian with his POV. MANY other Canadians share it! What's more, quite often poorly thought out protest tactics often add to those numbers. The native protesters can actually lose more than they gain.

Poorly thought out protest tactics are to be counterbalanced by poorly thought out opinions of ineffectual Canadians? I hardly think so. What was the outcome of the Douglas Estates protest? Did it result in a refusal of service for Natives at the local Timmies?

Where this matters is at the ballot box. If the numbers add up to enough to sway a ballot then an elected member had best pay attention or he will lose his seat! It is very short sighted for natives to think that they are only fighting a government. Politicians need popular support to acquire power and if giving in to native demands on an issue is perceived as wrong or unfair by the rest of Canadians then it would be stupid to expect a politician to commit political suicide just to make some protesters happy. Even if the law was clearly in the natives' favour no politician worth his salt would then give in. Instead, he would make sure that the issue would be stalled and never resolved for generations, long past the time when he need worry about winning an election!

How many MP's have lost their seats due to the rulings of the courts? Or... it cost $600 million in 1989 dollars to build SkyDome. How many MP's lost their seats when Rogers bought it for $25 million in 2004?

Without the support of mainstream Canadians protesters like those at Six Nations will never get what they want. Meanwhile, they still persist in using their neighbours as cannon fodder in their war with governments and seemingly totally bewildered at why they don't get more support!

Then using this premise, mainstrean Canadians supported the protest at Douglas Estates since the protesters got what they wanted. Bewilderment not required.

I realize that most of the militant protesters are leftists and anti-business but it might do them some good to take some salesmanship courses. They could easily have won their demands in Caledonia AND won the support of the townsfolk at the same time! A child with a lemonade stand could have done a better job.

Come on. If you know anything about the leadup to the whole Six Nations claims, etc., you wouldn't be making such silly comments.

No, the natives there chose a different path. So be it. Reap the whirlwind! As ye have done so shall ye receive. Pity!

Pity? Why have the developers started building on Douglas Estates again?

[PIK]

No one cares about what concerns you.

Canada doesn't have any land. All lands are under treaty with First Nations, or subject to consultation with First Nations.

In fact the reverse is true. All land Canada claims is on native lands. Check out the Royal Proclamation 1763. It says so.

I live on the ottawa and years back recieved a letter saying I am on native land and will be paying my taxes to them. They can bring all the treaties they want and all they will get from me is lead. I will take no shit off any native who thinks they can just push us around, the day will come when they will find out they are not as powerful as they think.

[bloodyminded]

I live on the ottawa and years back recieved a letter saying I am on native land and will be paying my taxes to them. They can bring all the treaties they want and all they will get from me is lead. I will take no shit off any native who thinks they can just push us around, the day will come when they will find out they are not as powerful as they think.

Tough guy, huh?

[Shwa]

Tough guy, huh?

I sure hope tough guy's gun is registered or he might get in trouble.

[bloodyminded]

I sure hope tough guy's gun is registered or he might get in trouble.

Yes, the man who says he'll fill tax collectors full of lead...you know, I might even side with the Feds on that particular issue.

[Shwa]

Yes, the man who says he'll fill tax collectors full of lead...you know, I might even side with the Feds on that particular issue.

Agreed. I think we might find him one day 'floating along the river.' If you know what I mean.

[charter.rights]

Agreed. I think we might find him one day 'floating along the river.' If you know what I mean.

Especially since the Mohawks have friendly connections with some Quebecers that just love to try out their hand at making concrete shoes. I'm sure he'll make a good sink-test dummy. After all he is half way there.

[guyser]

Native land or not, anynone anywhere buying a cottage on leased land is not too bright. Now of course if it is cheap and you can afford to walk away from it years from now then by all means.

But if people think its the natives who are the only bad apples then you are sadly mistaken.

See Algonquin Park and numerous other parks where cottages have been grandfathered and turned into leaseholds.

The one common denominator?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[scribblet]

Don't do it, buy something as far away from 'native land' as you can.

[charter.rights]

...buy something as far away from 'native land' as you can.

Hmmmm... That would be Iceland....but certainly not anywhere in Canada.

Edited October 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[grainfedprairieboy]

Hmmmm... That would be Iceland....but certainly not anywhere in Canada.

You should go ahead and make a political statement. There is no such thing as indian land. They are squatting on my land.

[charter.rights]

You should go ahead and make a political statement. There is no such thing as indian land. They are squatting on my land.

Incorrect. Inasmuch as you have given up your right to choose and let the government do it for you, the Crown government committed us to recognize Indian Lands as an aboriginal plenum dominium in North America. Those legal rights were embedded in our Constitution under the Royal Proclamation 1763 and since most of Canada has never been surrendered, it remains their sovereign territory. And as much as we have made treaties with Native people, or accepted surrenders of tracts of land, they still hold a personal and usufructary right over surrendered lands entrenched in those surrenders and as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So the statement is true. Iceland would be the furthest away from Indian Land in the northern hemisphere.

And just so you know.....The Crown of Great Britain which made those treaties and recognized the Dominion of Indian Lands, is indivisible from the Crown of Canada as determine by Lord Denning's Judicial Review 1982 that occurred just before the Constitution of Canada was repatriated.

• “That judgement was given at a time when, in constitutional law, the Crown was single and indivisible. In view of it , and in later cases, I think that the Indian title (by which I mean the ‘personal and ususfructary right’ of the Indians in respect of ‘lands reserved to the Indians’) was a title superior to all others save and in so far as the Indians themselves surrendered or ceded it to the Crown. That title was guaranteed to them by the Crown. Then by treaties which covered much of Canada the Indians did cede and surrender their right to some lands to the Crown and in return the Crown undertook to full the obligations set out in the treaties. Those treaty obligations were obligations of the Crown, the single and indivisible Crown which was at that time the Crown of the United Kingdom. Lord Denning 1982
  

And one last thing ~ What you think of as "your land" is actually vested in the Crown, whose government in Canada can boot you to Canmore and back if they think they could use it or give it to one of their buddies. You own nothing here in Canada and your deed is nothing more than a use permit that can be revoked at a moment's notice. Get it?

Edited October 15, 2010 by charter.rights