An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage

[ToadBrother]

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."

Perhaps the better term is "self-government".

[ToadBrother]

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

The BNA Act, 1867. The Supreme Court can't create new constitutional directives. It can only interpret what is there.

[charter.rights]

The BNA Act, 1867. The Supreme Court can't create new constitutional directives. It can only interpret what is there.

Making a declaration isn't altering the Constitution and the Courts are within their boundaries to do such things.

"Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s declaration that Omar Khadr’s rights were breached by actions of the Canadian government, the spheres of power claimed by Canada’s government and Canada’s courts have clashed."

A good example. The declaration doesn't have to prescribe any solution but to say that the government's actions violate aboriginal rights would force government not only to reconsider their stance with respect to independent self government, but would cause them to enter into negotiations and examinations of the constitutionality of Indian status under the framework.

Aboriginal Self-Government

"If an Aboriginal people is successful in proving a right of self-government, and the Crown fails to prove that it was extinguished prior to 17 April 1982, it would have been recognized and affirmed by the Constitution as an existing Aboriginal right at that time."

The extent of the jurisdiction that can be exercised depends on either the scope of the right of self-government, or on the delegating legislation. Some Aboriginal nations claim that they have an inherent right to govern all aspects of their nation's affairs, and that their relationship with Canada is a nation-to-nation relationship that is not governed by the Canadian Constitution.

I have provided proof that a pre-existing aboriginal right to sovereign self-government exists. It is up to the Crown (or you since you are taking that position) to prove it was extinguished prior to 1982. I have found nothing in 20 years of researching this subject that suggests that at least Six Nations' rights were ever extinguished.

Edited November 4, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

Perhaps the better term is "self-government".

"Self-government" meaning what exactly?

[charter.rights]

The BNA Act, 1867. The Supreme Court can't create new constitutional directives. It can only interpret what is there.

Oh but it can and does all the time. The fact that they interpret and refine meanings and application of rights forces constitutional changes from the old stogy beliefs and colonial bias to new progressive views. So while they don't touch the wording, their declarations and precedent-setting rulings change the meaning behind the Constitution and thus it evolves.

Edited November 4, 2010 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

Oh but it can and does all the time. The fact that they interpret and refine meanings and application of rights forces constitutional changes from the old stogy beliefs and colonial bias to new progressive views. So while they don't touch the wording, their declarations and precedent-setting rulings change the meaning behind the Constitution and thus it evolves.

Doubleplusungood!

[CANADIEN]

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.

As I said, there are two versions of the story, both put forward by The Confederacy and its supporters, and there is not enough info provided to support one or another. And as I said, you'll choose the one that fits your narrative. Come back on this one when the facts are well established.

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.

You cannot name ONE country that is recognizing the Six Nations as a sovereign state. If there is even one, please name it once.

What you keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating does not constitute evidence that the Six Nations are a sovereign state, no matter how you try to make it sound like it meets the definition and ignore it.

The funniest part is that I once considered First nations to be sovereign states. EXcept that the more I thought about it, and the more I looked into it, the less sense it made.

As for the legend that Canada has no land mass (interesting that I have not raised the issue of land mass, isn't it), only one response can be made to it...

Edited November 4, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

What thins? What CR?

You never figured out I am the King of Typos? If you did, you know the word I misspelled was think. As for CR, that's Charter Rights. Considering the non-sense from the two of you on this thread, I think it should be left for the two of you alone.

[CANADIEN]

Making a declaration isn't altering the Constitution and the Courts are within their boundaries to do such things.

"Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s declaration that Omar Khadr’s rights were breached by actions of the Canadian government, the spheres of power claimed by Canada’s government and Canada’s courts have clashed."

A good example. The declaration doesn't have to prescribe any solution but to say that the government's actions violate aboriginal rights would force government not only to reconsider their stance with respect to independent self government, but would cause them to enter into negotiations and examinations of the constitutionality of Indian status under the framework.

Aboriginal Self-Government

"If an Aboriginal people is successful in proving a right of self-government, and the Crown fails to prove that it was extinguished prior to 17 April 1982, it would have been recognized and affirmed by the Constitution as an existing Aboriginal right at that time."

The extent of the jurisdiction that can be exercised depends on either the scope of the right of self-government, or on the delegating legislation. Some Aboriginal nations claim that they have an inherent right to govern all aspects of their nation's affairs, and that their relationship with Canada is a nation-to-nation relationship that is not governed by the Canadian Constitution.

I have provided proof that a pre-existing aboriginal right to sovereign self-government exists. It is up to the Crown (or you since you are taking that position) to prove it was extinguished prior to 1982. I have found nothing in 20 years of researching this subject that suggests that at least Six Nations' rights were ever extinguished.

News to you. Courts do not issue declarations, even though media or individuals are prone to say the courts "declare" things. They issue judgements, orders or opinions. Not declarations.

[g_bambino]

Courts do not issue declarations, even though media or individuals are prone to say the courts "declare" things. They issue judgements, orders or opinions. Not declarations.

S. 91 of the Constitution Act 1867 states: "...the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to... Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." I wonder in what ruling the Supreme Court decided that the clause stating the federal parliament makes laws for First Nations doesn't state the federal parliament makes laws for First Nations.

[charter.rights]

As I said, there are two versions of the story, both put forward by The Confederacy and its supporters, and there is not enough info provided to support one or another. And as I said, you'll choose the one that fits your narrative. Come back on this one when the facts are well established.

You cannot name ONE country that is recognizing the Six Nations as a sovereign state. If there is even one, please name it once.

Japan, Switzerland, Australia. There are three for you. You really are a train wreck....

What you keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating does not constitute evidence that the Six Nations are a sovereign state, no matter how you try to make it sound like it meets the definition and ignore it.

I have posted 10 or more links to back up what I have been saying. You have cited what? One?

The funniest part is that I once considered First nations to be sovereign states. EXcept that the more I thought about it, and the more I looked into it, the less sense it made.

There is your problem. You can't think about what you really don't know and understand. Being colonially biased you have succumbed to the myth of Canada - even to the expense of Quebec being suck up by British roots. That's good because that makes you just an ordinary Canadian whose has even lost track of his own roots.....

As for the legend that Canada has no land mass (interesting that I have not raised the issue of land mass, isn't it), only one response can be made to it...

So you've lost it. What else is new?

Edited November 5, 2010 by charter.rights

[CANADIEN]

Japan, Switzerland, Australia. There are three for you. You really are a train wreck....

I said RECOGNIZE the Six Nations as a sovereign state. But hey, feel free to prove they do so... what's the address of their embassies to the Six Nations?

By the way, passports issued by the Palestinian authorities are accepted by 43 contries. Palestine is not a sovereign state. Nor is the Conch Republic, whose passport has been used as an identity document outside of the United States (of course, I wouldn't even think of Six Nations or Palestine as an equivalent to the Conch Republic, but you need to come with something more subtantial than "they passport is accepted")

I have posted 10 or more links to back up what I have been saying. You have cited what? One?

Ten thousand web site with the same erroneous information won't make it factual.

There is your problem. You can't think about what you really don't know and understand.

What can I say, I only understand what makes sense.

So you've lost it. What else is new?

Correction. You made a statement that is so non-sensical that it only deserve to be laughed at.

[CANADIEN]

Being colonially biased you have succumbed to the myth of Canada - even to the expense of Quebec being suck up by British roots. That's good because that makes you just an ordinary Canadian whose has even lost track of his own roots.....

Seeing the FACTS is not bias. And Canada is not a myth. After all, its passport is recognized all around the world and the COUNTRY is recognized as a sovereign country by at least 179 countries.

As for that statement of yours that I have lost track of my own roots... Let's just say my mother taught me manners, so I'll limit myself to saying that you have to a complete brain-dead moron to utter such absolute garbage non-sense.

Edited November 5, 2010 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

Seeing the FACTS is not bias. And Canada is not a myth. After all, its passport is recognized all around the world and the COUNTRY is recognized as a sovereign country by at least 179 countries.

As for that statement of yours that I have lost track of my own roots... Let's just say my mother taught me manners, so I'll limit myself to saying that you have to a complete brain-dead moron to utter such absolute garbage non-sense.

Ad hominen. I see you are out of intelligent discussion.

[CANADIEN]

Ad hominen. I see you are out of intelligent discussion.

Interesting, that's exactly what I thought about your saying that I have lost track of my roots.

Now, as to the issue of whether or not First nations are sovereign states. They are not.

There is an undeniable fact that historically, they were sovereign. But they had then something that they do not have now: recognition by other sovereign nations that they were independent sovereign nations, effective control of their foreign policy. Also, to paraphrase the definition of sovereignty in the Strand Judiciial Disctionary, they exercised de facto control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country.

The loss of sovereignty was not the result (at least in the case of most First Nations) of military conquest. Not that military conquest is the only way sovereignty can be lost. In this case, the process was long and subtle. It started the moment European powers decided that they could dispose of the land without consulting the First nations (treaties of Utrecht, Paris (1763), Paris (1783), Ghent).

It continued with the British (and later the Canadian) Crown ascerting and in effect exercising a greater and greater control over the lives of the First Nations and the administration fo their land. While there is no doubt that this was wrong in its intent and operations, and disastrous in its result, the process took place nonetheless.

When one nation is not seating at the table of the Nations (and by that I do not mean necessarily seating at the UN), when it does not control its border, when its grievances against another nation have to go through the courts of that nation, when it does not exercise sole full administrative control on its lands, it is not sovereign.

Any time any First Nation goes before the Supreme Court of Canada and invokes the Constitution, it does it fact recognizes the authority of both. Sovereign nations do not recognize the Constitution of other sovereign nations as having authority over them, except in a very limited fashion.

Sovereignty does not exist unless it is effectively exercised. The sending of envoys to foreign countries (which, in the case of the First Nations, are not being recognized as ambassadors), the granting of passports, the claim that "we never surrendered our sovereignty" are not enough by themselves. Proof that other countries, right now, in 2010, recognize that sovereignty, effective control over its foregin policy, effective control of borders, undisputed supreme authority of First Nations laws on First nation lands without the Supreme court of Canada having any authority - that would constitute undisputable proof of sovereignty.

That being said, it is undisputable that First Nations:

- are nations

- have a right to self-determination, including the right to seek to BECOME AGAIN sovereign

- have a right to conduct their own business and govern themselves to the extent their actions do not clash with Canadian Constitution and laws (that is, until such a time when they become sovereign again, if it happens)

- have a relationship to the Crown different from that of other Canadians

It is also undisputable that the Crown :

- has failed in its the responsibilities it had assumed towards First Nations

- has a duty to deal fairly and honourably with First nations

- has a responsibility to take into account (but not necessarily to accept as binding) First Nation's interpretations of past events and treaties

- has a responsibility to recognize that First nation land titles have not been exthinguished except when surrendered

I will draw the line at recognizing a sovereignty that, in 2010, simply does not exist.

Edited November 5, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Shwa]

S. 91 of the Constitution Act 1867 states: "...the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to... Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." I wonder in what ruling the Supreme Court decided that the clause stating the federal parliament makes laws for First Nations doesn't state the federal parliament makes laws for First Nations.

S. 25 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, re: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

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)

Furthermore, S.26 following states:

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Also, S. 35:

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

Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"

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

Land claims agreements

(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.

So I wonder in what Supreme Court ruling states that the Indians can never make laws for themselves when it is determined that "real sovereignty" or "self-government" for First Nations has been an existing right all along. Indian Affairs calls it "self-government."

Seriously, arguing that the Canadian Constitution doesn't provide for changes in the relationships between First Nations and the Government of Canada is a totally absurd position. Especially for those that cry the Constitution will need to be wholly scrapped in order to make a few adjustments. You know, like how the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement completely brought the whole country to ruin.

[g_bambino]

So I wonder in what Supreme Court ruling states that the Indians can never make laws for themselves...

Nobody - at least certainly not me - said First Nations can't make laws for themselves. However, an entity's ability to self-govern doesn't equal full sovereignty when that entity is subordinate to a higher body, such as First Nations being under the sovereignty of the Crown, as per the Royal Proclamation 1763, and the authority of the parliament of Canada, as per S.91 of the Constitution Act 1867. As I said already, the form of government First Nations use is required by and set down by an act of the Canadian parliament. (Similarly, Toronto Council, for instance, can make laws for the city but may only do so in the way the Crown in Right of Ontario stipulates through provincial law.) First Nations and their governments are therefore not sovereign.

+

Edited November 5, 2010 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

Interesting, that's exactly what I thought about your saying that I have lost track of my roots.

Now, as to the issue of whether or not First nations are sovereign states. They are not.

There is an undeniable fact that historically, they were sovereign. But they had then something that they do not have now... to recognize that First nation land titles have not been exthinguished except when surrendered

I will draw the line at recognizing a sovereignty that, in 2010, simply does not exist.

We've heard you opinion before. It doesn't make it so just because YOU believe it.

The Purpose of the Royal Proclamation 1763 was to protect aboriginal rights, not to subvert them.

SCoC Laskin J In Calder v. A-G of British Columbia (1973) said:

“This Proclamation was an Executive Order having the force and effect of an Act of Parliament and was described by Gwynne, J … as the “Indian Bill of Rights”…its force as a statute to the status of Magna Carta which has always been considered to be the law throughout the Empire. It was a law which followed the flag as England assumed jurisdiction over newly discovered or acquired lands or territories… In respect of this Proclamation, it can be said that when other exploring nations were showing a ruthless disregard of native rights England adopted a remarkably enlightened attitude towards the Indians of North America.

The Proclamation must be regarded as a fundamental document upon any just determination of original rights rests.”

SCoC Larmer C. J. In DELGAMUUKW v. BRITISH COLUMBIA (1997) said:

...the sui generis [i.e., unique] nature of Aboriginal title as the unifying principle underlying its various dimensions. These are:

•

inalienability

, in that lands held pursuant to Aboriginal title may be transferred or surrendered only to the Crown:

this does not mean

, however,

that Aboriginal title "is a non-proprietary interest which amounts to no more than a licence to use and occupy the land and cannot compete on an equal footing with other proprietary interests"

(par. 113);

•

source

, in that

Aboriginal title arises from (1) occupation of Canada by Aboriginal peoples prior to the Royal Proclamation of 1763

: under common law principles, the physical fact of occupation is proof of possession in law; and (2) the relationship between common law and pre-existing systems of Aboriginal law;

•

communal nature,

in that

Aboriginal title is a collective right to land held by all members of an Aboriginal nation.

These features cannot be explained fully under either common law rules of real property, or property rules of Aboriginal legal systems.

So from this we have the following facts:

1. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was a 'fundamental document upon any just determination of original rights rests'.

2. Aboriginal authority over land was a 'sui generis' (unique and not readily understood under common law) that made it 'inalienable' by any other means except surrender to the Crown, that the recognition of the source was from aboriginal occupation and use of lands prior to the Proclamation, and that it was personal and communal in nature - a usufruct among all people of the nation.

Given these facts, the ScoC has also ruled in Chippewa of Sarnia (2000) v. A-G of Canada that the following test had to be applied in order to determine whether or not a surrender could be declared to have taken place:

1. Did the surrender procedures set out in the Royal Proclamation have the force of law at the time of the sale?

2. Did the Chippewas surrender the disputed lands to the Crown?

3. If the lands were not surrendered, did the Chippewas nonetheless consent to or affirm the sale?

4. Is the Chippewas’ claim barred by any statutory limitation periods?

5. In the absence of a surrender, is the Cameron patent void ab initio or is the remedy subject to the exercise of the court’s discretion?

6. Do the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence apply to bar the Chippewas’ claim to the disputed lands?

7. Does the equitable defence of good faith purchaser for value apply to defeat the Chippewas’ claim? If so, was the motions judge correct in finding that the defence of good faith purchaser for value was subject to an equitable sixty-year limitation period before it can operate to extinguish the Chippewas’ claim to the land?

8. If the Chippewas enjoy continuing and unextinguished rights in the disputed lands, should this court order that the Crown has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Chippewas?

[189] The Indian provisions of the Royal Proclamation ... creates an interior Indian territory beyond the colonies and the western settlement barrier. It prohibits government land grants of any kind in this territory and prohibits government land grants in the colonies of unceded Indian land...The leave and licence provisions are of little application

and have no significance to this case.

In this case the Court held that surrender had not taken place. In essence acquiescence cannot be assumed. It also provided that

government could not issues grants or licenses for settlement.

So in Six Nations defense there was either no surrender, or a very clear cut case to determine if one took place. In fact what we are talking about that Southern Ontario was never surrender, is supported by the Chippewas case above. There is no evidence that a surrender took place in this capacity.

So yes right now I am talking about land title...or a sui generis...Which provides the support for the soveriegnty issue.

You have recognized that Six Nations and other FN were sovereign before the Proclamation took effect. The Proclamation did not have the force of removing aboriginal rights but of protecting them, and as such their sovereignty would have still been intact at the date the RP was proclaimed. What you are saying if I can get to the crux of it, is that Six Nations acquiesced to the Crown, or at least the law of laches applies such that they did nothing to change the situation or assert their right to self-government. However the SCoC has said that self-government is a right derived prior to the Proclamation and it is inherent and inalienable. So surrender of that right (if surrender of rights is possible) would have had to be specific and deliberate, such that according to Lord Denning:

...it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws and customs, and never interfere with them...

McLachlin J.’s comments in R. v. Van der Peet, (1996):

For legislation or regulation to extinguish an aboriginal right,the intention to extinguish must be “clear and plain”: Sparrow, supra at p. 1099. The Canadian test for extinguishment of aboriginal rights borrows from the American test, enunciated in United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986), at pp. 739-40: “[w]hat is essential [to satisfy the “clear and plain” test’] is clear evidence that [the government] actually considered the conflict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty” or right.

What this means is that acquiescence is not a valid instrument to surrender a right, but that the surrender of a right must be clear and concise and must be an act of the Crown, and not the government on its own.

And further arising from the Chippewas v. A-G of Canada the SCoC recognizd that no surrender could take place except in the full customs and ceremony in full public view of the nation.

So that sui generis was held by individual and separate nations BEFORE the proclamation. That cannot be understated since there are many pre-Proclamation treaties which depended on it. The proclamation could not simply assume to remove their sovereignty by a unilateral declaration nor can they lose their right to self-government through acquiescence or neglect. And since their sui-generis title over land is unique we must also conclude that their right to self-government is also unique ab intio. Therefore there must have been a 'clear and concise' action by the Crown and Six Nations, held in full public view to surrender that right to self-government.

In fact this never took place and from before the Proclamation until today Six Nations has held fast that they are a sovereign and independent people who hold a treaty relationship with the Crown. In 2006 the government recognized de facto that the Confederacy (and not the band government) would be taking the lead in negotiations at Caledonia. They accepted that they had the authority to commit Six Nations people to the process.

On your point about submitting to the Courts, I would suggest that you revisit the NAFTA conflict over lumber tariffs where the government of Canada appealed to the US Supreme Court for redress. If as you say that submitting to one nations courts automatically creates a acquiescence, then welcome to the U.S.

The treaty relationship between Six Nations and the Crown (not the government but the Crown in Right of Canada) cannot be altered by an act of the government and the government's failure to uphold Crown's fiduciary responsibilities can be challenged in Canadian courts. That is the proper place one would go to force the government to act in good faith, and those courts could so order it.

Finally. This does not mean that there is a division of Canada, or suddenly armed borders start showing up everywhere. But what it does mean is that the nature of Canada - its constitutionality - is not what it appears, nor what YOU believe. So it is a myth in essence certainly as far as how First Nations fit into it. And that means that we must sit down to sort out exactly where F.N fit into Canada, and ask them where they want to be. At the same time we can't engage most Canadians because like you they are hung out on the myths and legal magic created by the Family Compact of the 1800s with it full intent to steal land they were banned by the Crown from doing.

So the Crown of Canada on behalf of HRM subjects will be the ones engaged in the discussions. However, if F.N want out, then we have no choice but to renegotiate our position here. A Rwanda type solution is not an option even though most Canadians would surely be calling for it.

Edited November 5, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Interesting, that's exactly what I thought about your saying that I have lost track of my roots.

Not at all. The root of Canadiens as I understand it, are not far from the aboriginal roots you dispute.

[Saipan]

Japan, Switzerland, Australia

They let them play some native games. So what does it mean?

Have you seen their Embassy?

Or Olympic team?

Sorry to rain on your parade.

http://europa.eu/travel/doc/index_en.htm

You will therefore need to present a valid passport or ID card to travel to those five countries. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are also Schengen members but are not in the EU.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Saipan

[charter.rights]

They let them play some native games. So what does it mean?

Have you seen their Embassy?

Or Olympic team?

Sorry to rain on your parade.

http://europa.eu/travel/doc/index_en.htm

You will therefore need to present a valid passport or ID card to travel to those five countries. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are also Schengen members but are not in the EU.

You mean like this one that gets them into about 50 countries world-wide.

Iroquois Nation Haudenosaunee passport

[CANADIEN]

The Purpose of the Royal Proclamation 1763 was to protect aboriginal rights, not to subvert them.

And of course, nobody who has read my postings can logically claim that I think the purpose of the Royal Proclamation was to subvert First Nations rights or that I want it to be the case.

What I and other have demonstrated is that the British Crown did clearly asserted a cliam of sovereignty in the Proclamation. We`ve heard your opinion to the contraty before. It doesn't make it so just because YOU believe it.

You are of course free to show the text of any court judgement that interprets the Royal Proclamation as meaning any First Nation is a sovereign state - and I mean one with the actual word sovereign in it.

[charter.rights]

You are of course free to show the text of any court judgement that interprets the Royal Proclamation as meaning any First Nation is a sovereign state - and I mean one with the actual word sovereign in it.

It hasn't yet been challenged but you can bet it is coming. Aboriginal jurisprudence is evolving so quickly that not a stone goes unturned and everything is subject to scrutiny.

So the problem is not mine, any more than you can provide a Supreme Court ruling that says they are not sovereign nations. We just haven't come that far yet.

However, the issue isn't one for the courts, yet. What is taking place is a Constitutional discussion in legal and academic circles that is examining the issues of sovereignty in discussions on reconciliation, recognition and accommodation. This means that government might very well get a chance to solve the problem before it gets to court. And if not, there are hundreds of lawyers party to the discussion that will be well prepared to suggest, and defend such a case for sovereignty in the coming years. It is only a matter of time.

My point has been made successfully. Six Nations have never capitulated, or acquiesced, or surrender their sovereignty to the Crown. So from their perspective they are still sovereign and independent with a treaty relationship with the Crown in right of Canada (and not the government who is subordinate to the Crown). We cannot advance any claim under the guise that we own them without first coming to a consensus with them on where they fit in. Any attempts to move forward will simply be more cause for protests, road blocks and economic disruption - all of which can be justified by our inaction to recognize their status inside or outside the Canadian Constitutional Order. And since there are a number of issues in the present that require their consent....like the 3rd line on the CN tracks...like the use of the St. Lawrence to transport hazardous goods...like the push for diamond mines and oil and gas wells in the north...we may very well be in for a long Indian summer.

[CANADIEN]

the ScoC has also ruled in Chippewa of Sarnia (2000) v. A-G of Canada that the following test had to be applied in order to determine whether or not a surrender could be declared to have taken place:

1. Did the surrender procedures set out in the Royal Proclamation have the force of law at the time of the sale?

2. Did the Chippewas surrender the disputed lands to the Crown?

3. If the lands were not surrendered, did the Chippewas nonetheless consent to or affirm the sale?

4. Is the Chippewas claim barred by any statutory limitation periods?

5. In the absence of a surrender, is the Cameron patent void ab initio or is the remedy subject to the exercise of the courts discretion?

6. Do the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence apply to bar the Chippewas claim to the disputed lands?

7. Does the equitable defence of good faith purchaser for value apply to defeat the Chippewas claim? If so, was the motions judge correct in finding that the defence of good faith purchaser for value was subject to an equitable sixty-year limitation period before it can operate to extinguish the Chippewas claim to the land?

8. If the Chippewas enjoy continuing and unextinguished rights in the disputed lands, should this court order that the Crown has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Chippewas?

[189] The Indian provisions of the Royal Proclamation ... creates an interior Indian territory beyond the colonies and the western settlement barrier. It prohibits government land grants of any kind in this territory and prohibits government land grants in the colonies of unceded Indian land...The leave and licence provisions are of little application

and have no significance to this case.

In this case the Court held that surrender had not taken place. In essence acquiescence cannot be assumed. It also provided that

government could not issues grants or licenses for settlement.

Interesting that you choose this case. I say interesting because

- the Chippewas sought to have land in dispute returned from private corporation owners to them, and compensation paid by the Crown for land currently owned by individuals (the explanation of the history of the land in question, is like the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, long)

- the case was rejected

- in rejecting the case, the judges stated than, and I quote

In the Canadian legal tradition, no right is absolute, not even constitutionally protected aboriginal rights (...)[par. 263]

- the Chippewas of Sarnia asked for leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal's judgement to the Supreme ourt, but it was refused. As a result, the Supreme Court did NOT hear the case

- Chppewas land claims are in conflict with Six Nations claims

Edited November 6, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

It hasn't yet been challenged but you can bet it is coming.

Wake me up when that happens.

So the problem is not mine, any more than you can provide a Supreme Court ruling that says they are not sovereign nations.

True, but then, I have never claimed it as.

My point has been made successfully.

Your central point, that in 2010 First Nations are sovereign nations, has not been made.