An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage

[ToadBrother]

About 50 countries world-wide have recognized the Haudenosaunee passport for over 50 years.

As a courtesy at best, and certainly effectively underwritten by the Crown. It's almost a given that if the Government of Canada protested, most of these countries would cease to give any sort of a nod. Heck, the Brits didn't even want to recognize them until they got assurances from the Canadian Government. Yeah, real passports there.

They are not a sovereign state. No one recognizes them as one. The Supreme Court does not have the power to name them one (and never has anyways).

When they can have ambassadors and UN General Assembly delegates, and the other long list of things I gave that mark a sovereign state, we'll talk. Until then, you, and those of your camp who have this delusion are talking out of your asses.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shwa]

As a courtesy at best, and certainly effectively underwritten by the Crown. It's almost a given that if the Government of Canada protested, most of these countries would cease to give any sort of a nod. Heck, the Brits didn't even want to recognize them until they got assurances from the Canadian Government. Yeah, real passports there.

They are not a sovereign state. No one recognizes them as one. The Supreme Court does not have the power to name them one (and never has anyways).

When they can have ambassadors and UN General Assembly delegates, and the other long list of things I gave that mark a sovereign state, we'll talk. Until then, you, and those of your camp who have this delusion are talking out of your asses.

That is an interesting starting point though, isn't it? Starting with one side's defintion as delusion.

It is interesting that you should mention ambassadors, because this relates to the Saskatchewan Cree chief John Tootoosis. Surely you have heard of him?

And the Iroquois passport is but one item. While the UN doesnt official recognize the Iroquois as a member nation, they certainly are well aware of them.

They are not a sovereign state.

I think most people would agree with your in this, however, this does not preclude a state of sovereignty does it?

[CANADIEN]

There you go again. Taking things out of context.

Out of your context, not the context of the text.

The Huron were one nation of the seven nations (...)

Actually, the Huron were a Confederacy. Looks (no suprise there) like your knowledge of First Nations is limited to only the Iroquois.

that the Iroquois chased out of the Beaver Hunting Grounds (Detroit and the Michigan Peninsula) (...)

the question is whether or not the Hunting Grounds in question only included the Michigan Peninsula. Reading of the text tells me it did not.

(what? you think there was an imaginary border then?)

Nope.

Most of the Huron (which by their real name is Wendat) went to Quebec in 1656 with the French after disease decimated their populations

Wrong. The Iroquois attacks of 1648-1650, which practically destroyed the Wendat Confederacy, were as much a factor as the epidemics. A large chunk of the Wendats were absorbed into the five (then) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. Small groups of refugees fled west and, by 1701, were among the First Nations that, according to Lamothe-Cadillac, were living near... Detroit.

You are incredibly naive.

I must be, I still believe you might start to think logically and place the Mitchell Map in its proper context.

The map presents a Royal Proclamation 1763 era interpretation of the Nanfan surrender (...)

and what about Nanfan Treaty era interpretations of the Nanfan treaty? But well, you are too stuck into misunderstanding the Mitchell Map and the context of its creation.

and just like the Supreme Court of Canada has been refining what the Royal Proclamation really meant (...)

Feel free to show the text of any Supreme Court decision that says that the Royal Proclamation indicated what were the limits of any land surrenders done before 1763

the Mitchell Map provides a much more modern and accurate rendition of the surrender (...)

More modern meaning not of the same time period of the treaty. As for accuracy... The text of the ONE ducment that counts, the Nanfan Treaty, contradicts the Mitchell Masp. Feel free to show documents or maps from the time of the treaty that support your theory. Like the Clewes map of 1701 (that's right the YEAR of the treaty) currently n the National Archives of Great Britain. Until then, I will rely on the authoritative source, the TREATY.

especially since you have trouble with your interpretations(...)

nope, I have troubles with YOURS

(...) in light of the supporting [correction: inconclusive and misinterpreted by you] evidence I have provided on numerous occasions

Come back when you can use sources CONTEMPORARY to the Treaty to support your theory.

Edited November 4, 2010 by CANADIEN

[ToadBrother]

That is an interesting starting point though, isn't it? Starting with one side's defintion as delusion.

It is interesting that you should mention ambassadors, because this relates to the Saskatchewan Cree chief John Tootoosis. Surely you have heard of him?

Yes, I have. But he still wasn't an ambassador in any real sense of the word. Ambassadors have a very specific definition so far as the body of international law.

And the Iroquois passport is but one item. While the UN doesnt official recognize the Iroquois as a member nation, they certainly are well aware of them.

As they are of many indigenous groups; from the Maori to the Ainu. But none of these groups have a hope in hell of becoming sovereign states.

I think most people would agree with your in this, however, this does not preclude a state of sovereignty does it?

It really depends on what you mean by "sovereignty". Be a sovereign nation state grants certain rights, powers and responsibilities that divisions within nation states, even more loosely-organized nation states like Switzerland, possess. The sovereignty that native peoples in Canada sits somewhere between municipality and province; depending on the province and upon the treaties. In other words, the sovereignty they enjoy, or may enjoy via treaty (where treaties are not yet present) might be best described as "sovereignty save where the Crown claims those powers unto itself".

I can't tell you the future as to whether it will ever mean more than that, but it's pretty clear that the Federal government's longstanding view on the matter is that the First Nations occupy a special constitutional status within Confederation, which was enshrined in the BNA Act and the Constitution Act, 1982 (the BNA Act very explicitly putting "Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians" under the "exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada". In other words, for them to actually become nation states would require at the very least Parliament to agree to it. What's more, since the territorial integrity of any provinces in which a native "nation state" were to secede from Canada would be altered, I'm expecting that this would also fall under the amending formulas elaborated in sections 43 and 45, and would also require those provinces to accede to it as well. Even if one were to successfully assert that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or other pre-Confederation documents did directly state or indirectly infer some greater kind of sovereignty than we today understand it to exist, our constitutional system works on the premise that earlier constitutional documents, premises and traditions exist only so long as they are not overridden by later constitutional alterations or innovations (ie. the Magna Carta is still a part of our constitution, about the only part of it that remains relatively unmodified is Habeas Corpus, the rest either having been heavily modified or having been repealed or effectively become extinct). In other words, whatever one can argue about pre-1867 documents, the BNA Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982 firmly place all "Indian" peoples under the protection and authority of the Crown, with a special status, yes, but not the full sovereignty that Charter.Rights argues, and the Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the Constitution, merely to interpret it, and it's hard to find an alternative to Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, 1867, Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983 (the latest alteration to the constitution that interests us in this thread). No documents, constitutional or otherwise, prior to 1867 can possibly modify the explicit powers and responsibilities conferred upon the Crown and Parliament enacted from 1867 onward. Case closed.

As well, we enter the sticky area of secession under international law. To put the short to the long of it, there is no provision in international law for any region to unilaterally break away from a larger nation state. Generally it happens either through application of external force (ie. Kosovo), successful revolt (ie. American Revolution), forced partition (Pakistan from India in 1949) or negotiated secession (Eritrea's secession from Ethiopia in 1993, the dismantling of the British and French Empires). None of these seem terribly applicable to the current situation. Generally speaking most nations do not accept secession, mainly because once you set the precedent, it can put their own territorial integrity at risk. Secession without negotiation is thus frowned upon and such states can often have some difficulty getting states to recognize their independence (ie. Chechnya and South Ossetia), and it often takes a period of defacto self-rule and some very friendly and influential states willing to take on the new state as a client (ie. Kosovo and East Timor) to get key recognition.

No one can predict the future, but considering the long-standing constitutional relationship between the Crown and the native peoples of Canada, and the great unlikelihood that any other state out there, and in particular any state with meaningful influence, would ever support the claims of any First Nation to full sovereignty and independence, I'd say this whole thing is a non-starter.

[CANADIEN]

And you know this: ~how~? Because you said so? Because you are a Supreme Court judge? Or maybe you can use your crystal ball to see the future?

Think again.

The Supreme Court has stated that the Proclamation is not the origin of aboriginal rights but is the pivot point in history where all rights previous are recognized from that point forward.

The Royal Proclamation however, IS the point in law where all British right of sovereignty, law, and jurisdiction stems from....that before the Proclamation they had not right whatsoever over Indians or their land, except where treaties were made and land was surrendered. Do you follow?

So as Sovereign nations over land and body, Indians were self-governing (as they have always been) and as such the SCoC regonizes their right to self-government. However attempting to restrict that self-government to our constitutional umbrella has no basis in law, or in the Proclamation itself. Simply declaring sovereignty and jurisdiction over Indians doesn't wash since by their own admission only conquest over other nations gives them authority to rule.

So what we have is by all accounts "legal magic" where the Crown of Canada has attempted to assert a claim that really isn't there, nor one supported by the Crown of Great Britain when it was indivisible.

Lord Dennings 1982 High Court Judicial Review stated:

“Our long experience of these matters taught us how to treat the indigenous peoples. As a matter of public policy,

it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws

and customs,

and never interfere with them

except when necessary in the interests of peace and good order.

It was the responsibility of the Crown of England,

and those representing the Crown,

to see that the rights of indigenous people were secured to them

,

and that they were not imposed on by the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless.

Witness the impeachment of Warren Hastings in Westminister Hall for his conduct of affairs as Governor General of Bengal.”

So I would say that unless the Crown of Canada recognizes that First Nations are still autonomous, independent and sovereign the the Crown of Canada is itself the "the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless" that the Proclamation was designed to protect against. From the perspective aboriginal people, their status before the Proclamation was the same after as it was before, since the Proclamation was clearly aimed at British subjects, and not aboriginal people. It was a declaration - a clarification - FOR the British subjects and not at the Indians who by treaty had already resolved their differences with the Crown. It was the settler himself who was the problem and the target of the Proclamation, who ignored Crown rule in the new country and whose constant and persistent encroachments on the land and way of life of the Indians that caused so many Indian grievances against Crown.

It was the 1754 Treaty of Loggstown that was the final straw when after many encroachments and breeches of previous treaties that Six Nations finally refused to relinquish any more land. While they allowed settlement in areas that had already been occupied on the east side of the Ohio River, they made it clear that there would be no more surrenders, and no more encroachments onto their lands. And while the British were not happy with half of the land they were asking for they agreed to abide by the terms of that Treaty. Their only option was to tell the British settlers in bold where they could and could not settle.

Indian lands were "reserved for them" exclusively and under force of penalty if any British subject attempted to buy, lease, use or occupy. They could not even hunt west of the Ohio and so through the Proclamation the British set it aside. No matter what you think was in their mind at the time it is irrelevant to the basis of the law of Canada.

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 now exist

by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94)

35. (1) The

existing aboriginal and treaty rights

of the aboriginal peoples of Canada

are hereby recognized and affirmed

.

And that would include any rights - the right of autonomous self-government - that were in existence before the Proclamation, as well as after.

There was no surrender of lands by Six Nations to any of their lands in Ontario and they have never capitulated treatied or surrendered their Confederacy Government to the British, ever. So at a minimum leaves the Crown's ability to apply "legal magic" against Six Nations or any other Indian nation in a DISPUTE that must be reconciled.

All thi provesw that First Nations land titles predates Crown land titles, that they are indeed nations, and that they have an inherent right to self-government. Nothing of this means that they are sovereign nations in the contemporary sense of the word.

[Saipan]

All thi provesw that First Nations land titles predates Crown land titles

Neanderthal land titles predates Cro-Magnon land titles. And just like the "First Nations" titles......

Edited November 4, 2010 by Saipan

[charter.rights]

All thi provesw that First Nations land titles predates Crown land titles, that they are indeed nations, and that they have an inherent right to self-government. Nothing of this means that they are sovereign nations in the contemporary sense of the word.

Now you're back to using semantics..."contemporary sense of the word"...ya right.

We are talking nation to nation, recognition - equal status, sovereign over their respective governments and the people it served.

Six Nations was a sovereign nation on equal status to the Crown before the Proclamation and creating a whole bunk of "legal magic" didn't change that. It was merely slight of hand, using some wording that never meant what YOU think it means and trying to assert that they automatically became subjects because YOU say so.

Neither the Court nor the Government have any authority to determine or limit the scope of Six Nations self-government and sovereignty. And in fact the Federal Court has already taken a step in that direction. While I can't find the actual judgment, Madam Tabib of the Federal Court rejected an application to sue the Canadian Border Agency for their assaults on two elderly Mohawk women, citing that neither Akwesanse or Kahnawake where each of the women were from, was in Canada, meaning that because they were Mohawk and not Canadian, she could not hear the case.

The Supreme Court wouldn't need to change the Constitution. All that would be needed is a declaration by the Court that Six Nations people were not Canadian. Evey thing else could flow from that. Very simple indeed.

Then we have the matter of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which provides that States must recognize aboriginal rights. Autonomous self-government is a pre-existing right. That is very simple as well.

Aboriginal jurisprudence is evolving, and has come along way in 30 years. There are many cases before the courts today that are continuing to assert the 'unknown' but extensive issue of rights and sovereignty, and refine the previous decisions dealing with recognition by the SCoC, so it is just a matter of time.

The Honour of the Crown demands it.

[CANADIEN]

Neanderthal land titles predates Cro-Magnon land titles. And just like the "First Nations" titles......

Methink it would be good to let you and CR debate with eah other alone. The wilfully ignorant and the one making thins up...

[CANADIEN]

Now you're back to using semantics..."contemporary sense of the word"...ya right.

We are talking nation to nation, recognition - equal status, sovereign over their respective governments and the people it served.

Six Nations was a sovereign nation on equal status to the Crown before the Proclamation and creating a whole bunk of "legal magic" didn't change that. It was merely slight of hand, using some wording that never meant what YOU think it means and trying to assert that they automatically became subjects because YOU say so.

Neither the Court nor the Government have any authority to determine or limit the scope of Six Nations self-government and sovereignty. And in fact the Federal Court has already taken a step in that direction. While I can't find the actual judgment, Madam Tabib of the Federal Court rejected an application to sue the Canadian Border Agency for their assaults on two elderly Mohawk women, citing that neither Akwesanse or Kahnawake where each of the women were from, was in Canada, meaning that because they were Mohawk and not Canadian, she could not hear the case.

The Supreme Court wouldn't need to change the Constitution. All that would be needed is a declaration by the Court that Six Nations people were not Canadian. Evey thing else could flow from that. Very simple indeed.

Then we have the matter of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which provides that States must recognize aboriginal rights. Autonomous self-government is a pre-existing right. That is very simple as well.

Aboriginal jurisprudence is evolving, and has come along way in 30 years. There are many cases before the courts today that are continuing to assert the 'unknown' but extensive issue of rights and sovereignty, and refine the previous decisions dealing with recognition by the SCoC, so it is just a matter of time.

The Honour of the Crown demands it.

Call it what ever you want... self-government is not the same as sovereignty. When you can show that the Six Nations, or any First Nation for that matter, have accredited diplomats, an army or any other attribute of a sovereign state, then you will have a case. Not until then.

Interesting case that of two women being beaten by custom agents and suing the Government of Canada. Interesting not because of the beating, obviously (a crime, as for as I concerned) but because to different stories of what happened in court have been put forward by Mohaks and their supporters. In one, the two women went to the court, said that as Mohawk they were not Canadians and the court`s protonothary agreed with them. In the other version, the two women sued the federal government, government lawyers argued that the two women could not sue because they resided in the US - not Canada, the two women argued in court that it was a lie and that they WERE Canadian residents, and the court sided with the Government. Two different stories. Asthe court order will not be published (they rarely are), we will not know the full story, so I am not concluding that one of the stories is true and the other one false. You, of course, will jump on anything that support your flight of fancy.

Edited November 4, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Bryan]

Call it what ever you want... self-government is not the same as sovereignty. When you can show that the Six Nations, or any First Nation for that matter, have accredited diplomats, an army or any other attribute of a sovereign state, then you will have a case. Not until then.

Or a seat as a member state at the UN.

[CANADIEN]

Or a seat as a member state at the UN.

Mind you, some sovereignty states are not or where not at the UN. Switzerland, for example, was not a member until 2002. The Holy See (the Vatican) is considered a sovereign state in international law and is not member.

[charter.rights]

Call it what ever you want... self-government is not the same as sovereignty. When you can show that the Six Nations, or any First Nation for that matter, have accredited diplomats, an army or any other attribute of a sovereign state, then you will have a case. Not until then.

Interesting case that of two women being beaten by custom agents and suing the Government of Canada. Interesting not because of the beating, obviously (a crime, as for as I concerned) but because to different stories of what happened in court have been put forward by Mohaks and their supporters. In one, the two women went to the court, said that as Mohawk they were not Canadians and the court`s protonothary agreed with them. In the other version, the two women sued the federal government, government lawyers argued that the two women could not sue because they resided in the US - not Canada, the two women argued in court that it was a lie and that they WERE Canadian residents, and the court sided with the Government. Two different stories. Asthe court order will not be published (they rarely are), we will not know the full story, so I am not concluding that one of the stories is true and the other one false. You, of course, will jump on anything that support your flight of fancy.

Kahentinetha Horne lives in Akwesasne - or Cornwall Island - not the US.

Katenies Davis lives in Kahnawake, not the US.

So the Court said they were not Canadians, or at least agreed in a round about way with an assertion that Mohawks were not entitled to deal in a Canadian court. That is an open door.

Six Nations has sets for 50 Royaner, or diplomats that speak on behalf of the Confederacy, and have often sent delegations all over the world, and been recognized all over the world as representing their respective nations. The Confederacy need not be a member of the UN to be legitimate. That's hogwash.

Six Nations Confederacy produces its own passports that have been recognized in about 50 or more countries. The Iroquois National Lacrosse team travels regularly under that passport. The US recognizes and has for 50 years and have been negotiating with the Confederacy to update their passport to a secure passport that is acceptable to the standards laid out by Homeland Security.

The Mohawk Warriors are a militia force that are raised up from time to time to defend theirs and other nations. Six Nations does not have a need to have a full fledged army since their political ideology is based on the Great Law of Peace, which uses diplomacy to solve issues as long as it is possible.

Six Nations has a land base that was never surrendered to the Crown.

Six nations has about 25 treaties with other Nations, including the US and Canada.

The Six Nations Confederacy has their own constitution and have a democratic government system that has been around for about 1000 years.

The meet your test, and yet you still deny it in favour of your myths.

Canada has no land base. It only holds a usufrutary use of aboriginal land. So it fails one of your tests.

[Shwa]

Yes, I have. But he still wasn't an ambassador in any real sense of the word. Ambassadors have a very specific definition so far as the body of international law.

But here is the problem, as illustrated by Tootoosis. Whose "specific definition" of the word are you referring to? With Tootoosis, before there were any Indian "unions" of any weight, he was prevented - along with quite a few others - from establishing relationships between communities. He was prevented because of someone's "specific defintion" of this or that term. However Tootoosis and others overcame the problem.

As they are of many indigenous groups; from the Maori to the Ainu. But none of these groups have a hope in hell of becoming sovereign states.

It really depends on what you mean by "sovereignty".

It really depends on what you mean by "sovereignty". Be a sovereign nation state grants certain rights, powers and responsibilities that divisions within nation states, even more loosely-organized nation states like Switzerland, possess. The sovereignty that native peoples in Canada sits somewhere between municipality and province; depending on the province and upon the treaties. In other words, the sovereignty they enjoy, or may enjoy via treaty (where treaties are not yet present) might be best described as "sovereignty save where the Crown claims those powers unto itself".

I can't tell you the future as to whether it will ever mean more than that, but it's pretty clear that the Federal government's longstanding view on the matter is that the First Nations occupy a special constitutional status within Confederation, which was enshrined in the BNA Act and the Constitution Act, 1982 (the BNA Act very explicitly putting "Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians" under the "exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada". In other words, for them to actually become nation states would require at the very least Parliament to agree to it. What's more, since the territorial integrity of any provinces in which a native "nation state" were to secede from Canada would be altered, I'm expecting that this would also fall under the amending formulas elaborated in sections 43 and 45, and would also require those provinces to accede to it as well. Even if one were to successfully assert that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or other pre-Confederation documents did directly state or indirectly infer some greater kind of sovereignty than we today understand it to exist, our constitutional system works on the premise that earlier constitutional documents, premises and traditions exist only so long as they are not overridden by later constitutional alterations or innovations (ie. the Magna Carta is still a part of our constitution, about the only part of it that remains relatively unmodified is Habeas Corpus, the rest either having been heavily modified or having been repealed or effectively become extinct). In other words, whatever one can argue about pre-1867 documents, the BNA Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982 firmly place all "Indian" peoples under the protection and authority of the Crown, with a special status, yes, but not the full sovereignty that Charter.Rights argues, and the Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the Constitution, merely to interpret it, and it's hard to find an alternative to Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, 1867, Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983 (the latest alteration to the constitution that interests us in this thread). No documents, constitutional or otherwise, prior to 1867 can possibly modify the explicit powers and responsibilities conferred upon the Crown and Parliament enacted from 1867 onward. Case closed.

As well, we enter the sticky area of secession under international law. To put the short to the long of it, there is no provision in international law for any region to unilaterally break away from a larger nation state. Generally it happens either through application of external force (ie. Kosovo), successful revolt (ie. American Revolution), forced partition (Pakistan from India in 1949) or negotiated secession (Eritrea's secession from Ethiopia in 1993, the dismantling of the British and French Empires). None of these seem terribly applicable to the current situation. Generally speaking most nations do not accept secession, mainly because once you set the precedent, it can put their own territorial integrity at risk. Secession without negotiation is thus frowned upon and such states can often have some difficulty getting states to recognize their independence (ie. Chechnya and South Ossetia), and it often takes a period of defacto self-rule and some very friendly and influential states willing to take on the new state as a client (ie. Kosovo and East Timor) to get key recognition.

No one can predict the future, but considering the long-standing constitutional relationship between the Crown and the native peoples of Canada, and the great unlikelihood that any other state out there, and in particular any state with meaningful influence, would ever support the claims of any First Nation to full sovereignty and independence, I'd say this whole thing is a non-starter.

You see this as a non-starter from your position, from your side of the table. But unless you are listening to the other side as well, and acting in good faith on the behalf of everyone, there is no negotiation to be had at all. That is the same sort of problem Tootoosis faced. He overcame it.

One of the problems of negotiation, is that understanding of terms which is agreeable to both parties. The problem with running with a term whose meaning might not even be applicable to the other side, is that it leads to conclusions far ahead of the actual talks.

Therefore 'sovereign nation' might have a much different meaning than a simple 'break-away' state you are seeing. And from a FN standpoint their understanding of 'soverign nation' might mean something more like a state, for example, like the US, where there is a certain degree of autonomy, but participation in the confederation. Nunavut is a good example of the sort of evolution possible within the current context of our Constitution.

[Saipan]

Methink it would be good to let you and CR debate with eah other alone. The wilfully ignorant and the one making thins up...

What thins? What CR?

[Saipan]

The Six Nations Confederacy has their own constitution and have a democratic government system that has been around for about 1000 years.

The Great Raven told you?

[charter.rights]

The Great Raven told you?

You seriously need a formal education...

Six Nation - Haudenosaune Confederacy.

[ToadBrother]

Mind you, some sovereignty states are not or where not at the UN. Switzerland, for example, was not a member until 2002. The Holy See (the Vatican) is considered a sovereign state in international law and is not member.

This is by their own choice. All Switzerland had to do, externally, was request to become a member and start paying dues (domestically, of course, it had to go to referendum), and I'm assuming the Vatican could do the same. The point isn't that they are member states of the UN, but rather that they could become such if they wanted to be. No indigenous people on the planet whose traditional or treaty lands lie within the borders of a larger nation state has that option. That would require secession.

[ToadBrother]

But here is the problem, as illustrated by Tootoosis. Whose "specific definition" of the word are you referring to? With Tootoosis, before there were any Indian "unions" of any weight, he was prevented - along with quite a few others - from establishing relationships between communities. He was prevented because of someone's "specific defintion" of this or that term. However Tootoosis and others overcame the problem.

My side of the table is over a century and a half of constitutional precedent. The Constitution Act 1867 explicitely puts native peoples under the protection and authority of the Crown. It would require either an open act of secession for them to achieve real sovereignty.

It really depends on what you mean by "sovereignty".

Well duh...

You see this as a non-starter from your position, from your side of the table. But unless you are listening to the other side as well, and acting in good faith on the behalf of everyone, there is no negotiation to be had at all. That is the same sort of problem Tootoosis faced. He overcame it.

One of the problems of negotiation, is that understanding of terms which is agreeable to both parties. The problem with running with a term whose meaning might not even be applicable to the other side, is that it leads to conclusions far ahead of the actual talks.

Therefore 'sovereign nation' might have a much different meaning than a simple 'break-away' state you are seeing. And from a FN standpoint their understanding of 'soverign nation' might mean something more like a state, for example, like the US, where there is a certain degree of autonomy, but participation in the confederation. Nunavut is a good example of the sort of evolution possible within the current context of our Constitution.

I never said that the definition might not be modified, but you're trying to claim a degree of sovereignty that is, quite frankly, pretty much not going to happen. Yes, it's possible, as Brian Mulroney tried with his proposed amendments, to alter the status of the native peoples in the Constitution, but the point here is that that's what it would take to even alter their status within Confederation. The Supreme Court cannot override the Constitution, and the Constitution, as I have stated and even quoted, puts Indian affairs firmly in the grip of Ottawa. The Supreme Court does not have the power you or some First Nations seem to think it does, and I'd argue no leadership in any of the First Nations actually buys it either. Quite the opposite as we saw during the lead-up to the 1995 Quebec referendum, the native peoples in that province pretty much stated that they weren't going to abandon their constitutional guarantees to a sovereign Quebec.

[Saipan]

You seriously need a formal education...

Six Nation - Haudenosaune Confederacy.

Belittling others won't help you.

Post the text.

[g_bambino]

It really depends on what you mean by "sovereignty". Be a sovereign nation state grants certain rights, powers and responsibilities that divisions within nation states, even more loosely-organized nation states like Switzerland, possess. The sovereignty that native peoples in Canada sits somewhere between municipality and province; depending on the province and upon the treaties. In other words, the sovereignty they enjoy, or may enjoy via treaty (where treaties are not yet present) might be best described as "sovereignty save where the Crown claims those powers unto itself".

Total sovereignty - the kind CR asserts First Nations have - must meet two intertwined criteria: Exclucivity - the actions of an entity cannot be overruled by a higher authority - and absoluteness - the entity has the unlimited right to control everything within its jurisdiction. First Nations have neither of these, as evidenced by the Royal Proclamation 1763, clause 91.24 of the Constitution Act 1867, and the Indian Act.

[charter.rights]

My side of the table is over a century and a half of constitutional precedent. The Constitution Act 1867 explicitely puts native peoples under the protection and authority of the Crown. It would require either an open act of secession for them to achieve real sovereignty.

The aboriginal side of the table goes back 500 years of post contact law, history and custom. What do you think the Two Row Wampum was about? It set out the terms of the nation to nation relationship between the Dutch and their government system and the Haudenosaunee and their government system....go in the same direction but never interfering with each other.... And then when the British arrived they formalized it in the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty - Peace, Friendship and Goodwill. From the aboriginal perspective they never gave up to the British, but have worked side by side with them over 200 years for their joint benefit.

I never said that the definition might not be modified, but you're trying to claim a degree of sovereignty that is, quite frankly, pretty much not going to happen. Yes, it's possible, as Brian Mulroney tried with his proposed amendments, to alter the status of the native peoples in the Constitution, but the point here is that that's what it would take to even alter their status within Confederation. The Supreme Court cannot override the Constitution, and the Constitution, as I have stated and even quoted, puts Indian affairs firmly in the grip of Ottawa. The Supreme Court does not have the power you or some First Nations seem to think it does, and I'd argue no leadership in any of the First Nations actually buys it either. Quite the opposite as we saw during the lead-up to the 1995 Quebec referendum, the native peoples in that province pretty much stated that they weren't going to abandon their constitutional guarantees to a sovereign Quebec.

You are still stuck in an tenuous position. The real point here is that there is no agreement on what sovereignty means to us and them, or how it can be applied to them either inside or outside our Constitutional Order. And that creates a dispute between what we say they are and what they say they have always been. There can never be a reconciliation until WE recognize that their status MIGHT very well be something we don't understand. (This is the crux of the constitutional debate). Then we have a position we can both negotiate from.

However, your problem is your refusal to acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that either they are not Canadians and not subjects of the Crown, or very minimally that there is a confusion as to how they fit under a Confederation that shunned and tried to dismantle them against their will. The fact that we are still required to make treaties with them over land, and to observe their rights and consult with them about issues that affect them suggests that their involvement under the Constitutional prerogative is not the same as ordinary Canadians. We know it is not. So that special status means that we cannot decide whether or not we hold authority and sovereignty over them unless we involve them in the examination and discussion. Rather we must first present a case for inclusion based on recognition that they have the choice to decide, and listen to their case of exclusion, or inclusion with terms acceptable to them. We do not however, have the authority to ignore their points of view and demand that they adhere to our (or more specifically YOUR) point of view.

As I said earlier, all the Supreme Court need do is to make a declaration similar to what the Federal Court did to Davis and Horne, by declaring that Mohawks are not Canadians. That does not automatically create a succession but it puts our jurisdiction in peril and requires us to open up the door a little wider. And as the SCoC has also ruled in a number of cases, their history whether oral or otherwise recorded, must be given equal or better weight in the discussion. Otherwise, we go no where. They "in their canoe and us in our boat", and I predict it will be rough waters ahead for both of us.

And if you wonder why lands claims and development issues keeping rearing their ugly heads, this is it.

Edited November 4, 2010 by charter.rights

[ToadBrother]

As I said earlier, all the Supreme Court need do is to make a declaration similar to what the Federal Court did to Davis and Horne, by declaring that Mohawks are not Canadians. That does not automatically create a succession but it puts our jurisdiction in peril and requires us to open up the door a little wider. And as the SCoC has also ruled in a number of cases their history, whether oral or otherwise recorded must be given equal or better weight in the discussion. Otherwise, we go no where. They in their canoe and us in our boat, and I predict it will be rough waters ahead for both of us.

And if you wonder why lands claims and development issues keeping rearing their ugly heads, this is it.

And if cats had wings they'd be birds. The Supreme Court will never make such a ruling. It's fantasy. The Supreme Court has absolutely no power to make it, the Constitution explicitely puts natives under Federal jurisdiction, and our system of constitutional government means later constitutional innovations ALWAYS override earlier ones. Even if your theory was right (which it isn't) it would be irrelevant, the BNA Act, 1867 made it so.

Edited November 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

Never mind white man. How about Vietnamese, Portuguese, Chinese and Hungarians?

Are they treated to tax free status? Can they hunt and fish as they please, having that inherited from their forefathers?

Sovereign was friggin lucky here, not being run out of the country at gun point like South of the border

Last week I finished cutting free firewood and it felt good when I realized I'm stealing it from indians and the "sovereign". It warms my heart here in +26C

Since our tax money goes there I would like a audit of how it is being spent and how much the chiefs are taking ,but I understand the libs keep blocking a audit, is that true?

[Shwa]

My side of the table is over a century and a half of constitutional precedent. The Constitution Act 1867 explicitely puts native peoples under the protection and authority of the Crown. It would require either an open act of secession for them to achieve real sovereignty.

I never said that the definition might not be modified, but you're trying to claim a degree of sovereignty that is, quite frankly, pretty much not going to happen. Yes, it's possible, as Brian Mulroney tried with his proposed amendments, to alter the status of the native peoples in the Constitution, but the point here is that that's what it would take to even alter their status within Confederation. The Supreme Court cannot override the Constitution, and the Constitution, as I have stated and even quoted, puts Indian affairs firmly in the grip of Ottawa. The Supreme Court does not have the power you or some First Nations seem to think it does, and I'd argue no leadership in any of the First Nations actually buys it either. Quite the opposite as we saw during the lead-up to the 1995 Quebec referendum, the native peoples in that province pretty much stated that they weren't going to abandon their constitutional guarantees to a sovereign Quebec.

I get the sense that you are starting to flip-flop here, by using the modified term "real sovereignty." How be you explain exactly that means, and how the adjective modifies the term "sovereignty" to degree that is "pretty much not going to happen."

Edited November 4, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

The Supreme Court will never make such a ruling. It's fantasy.

Based on what? Do you have some unshakeable precedent to cite or is this just your opinion?