An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage

[ToadBrother]

That same stodgy attitude got His Majesty out of American in 1776. And you don't know how late it is.

And yet the US has found itself in some cases in the same boat, having to honor treaties it made with American Indians.

At the end of the day, Saipan, either we are a nation that honors and abides by the rule of law, or we are not. If we are, then we must abide by the whole law, and not just those parts you seem to think important. There is long-standing precedent for the position of native peoples within Canada, and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. You're just going to have to accept it, and that's the end of the story. Want to modify it, well, you're going to have to get the native peoples to agree, much as BC is now negotiating with the natives within its boundaries.

[ToadBrother]

Doing it their style? Like for example Ojibway exterminating Lakotas from the Red Lake area?

Irrelevant.

[charter.rights]

You do that. I also invite every other person to provide whatever it is they want as documentary proof of whatever the hell they want. So what?

A nation will not be torn up over this issue. It can and will get messy but that is it. So now is the time to solve these problems. All current claims and or titles should be put on the table. Each group of First Nations peoples ought to be able to have a say in determining their own destiny. Its time to put the chips on the table folks. Deal with ALL FN peoples one group at a time, chosen by lottery, and resolve the issues at hand permanently.

This will not be quick. This will not be easy. This will not be without much pain and anguish on all sides. This can be done.

Nope. There are only two thoughts mentioned above and your mythical, xenophobic opinion is not one of them.

We could renegotiate Confederation and the Constitution that is true, but the act itself would tear the country apart and create greater divisions and polarized entrenchments. However, we cannot put all claims and titles on the table without also questioning the validity of the Constitution, and the foundation of myths that Canada is build upon. So we are back to the two thoughts on inclusiveness - recognition and reconciliation.

[Saipan]

Irrelevant.

It will be, 2012.

[ToadBrother]

Why should I give a shyte about George Whatever. If we should care about old treaties I want my slaves, now.

I don't care whether you care or not. You are bound by the laws just like everyone else. Don't like it. Try to get the laws changed or move somewhere where the laws are more to your liking. But this sort of absurd petulance indicates a childish mind, and certainly repeating the same lines over and over again indicates a lack of imagination.

And it's a Proclamation, not a treaty. Have you got some sort of cognitive problem?

[charter.rights]

And it's a Proclamation, not a treaty. Have you got some sort of cognitive problem?

Actually it was much more than a Proclamation and went beyond treaties in its guarantees.

Lord Denning High Court, 1982....continued:

“To my mind the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was equivalent to an entrenched provision in the constitution of the colonies n North America. It was binding on the Crown ‘so long as the sun rises and the river flows’. I find myself in agreement with what was said a few years ago in the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. A-G of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 145 at 203, in a judgement in which Laskin J concurred with Hall J and 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.”

[bloodyminded]

Have you got some sort of cognitive problem?

Is this a serious question? (Because mine, right here, is.)

[ToadBrother]

Actually it was much more than a Proclamation and went beyond treaties in its guarantees.

Lord Denning High Court, 1982....continued:

“To my mind the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was equivalent to an entrenched provision in the constitution of the colonies n North America. It was binding on the Crown ‘so long as the sun rises and the river flows’. I find myself in agreement with what was said a few years ago in the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. A-G of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 145 at 203, in a judgement in which Laskin J concurred with Hall J and 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.”

The Proclamation came from a time when the distance between Acts of Parliament, Royal Proclamations (effectively the Ministers of the Crown advising the Sovereign to make an executive order) and constitutional changes or additions could be one and the same. In Canada we have for the most part abandoned that for a formalized amending process, but in Britain, in the 18th century down until today, constitutional amendments are quite easy.

At any rate, yes, the Proclamation serves as a part of our constitution, obviously informing aspects of the Constitution Act, 1982, and on its own binding the Crown, just as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, 1689 and the Act of Settlement, 1701 still bind the Crown in Canada. The only way to alter the Proclamation's position would be to amend the Constitution, which holds a sufficient number of dangers that to say it is inadvisable is an understatement.

We are nation that recognizes the rule of law, and the basic law of the land says we have to treat with the native peoples as sovereign nations under the protection of the Crown. Unfortunately for all of us this was ignored for a couple of centuries in many cases (though there was certainly precedent even prior to the Proclamation for seeking treaties with the native peoples who lived in an territories claimed by or effectively controlled by the Crown; ie. the Covenant Chain), and now in those cases where treaties were not signed we're in a position, bound by long-standing precedent and constitutional requirement, to treat with them.

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps it would be easier to simply give ALL of Canada to the First Nations!

Lock, stock and barrel. With all assets and all DEBTS!

Then we demand THEY support US!

The problem is that the way they all to often look after themselves implies that millions would starve to death across Canada if they actually were in control!

I'm sure that the dead at least would be "spiritually" better off and would have felt more "tied to the land".

[CANADIEN]

You make the same mistake most people make by trying to hang an opinion on snippets of the proclamation and not the entire proclamation.

Correction. YOU are committed the mistake of having the Proclamation of 1763 say things it does not say.

The assertion of sovereignty, in the first part of your quote, hangs on the first paragraph of the Proclamation:

Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration the extensive and valuable Acquisitions in America, secured to our Crown by the late Definitive Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris the 10th Day of February last; and being desirous that all Our loving Subjects, as well of our Kingdom as of our Colonies in America, may avail themselves with all convenient Speed, of the great Benefits and Advantages which must accrue therefrom to their Commerce, Manufactures, and Navigation, We have thought fit, with the Advice of our Privy Council.

to issue this our Royal Proclamation, hereby to publish and declare

to all our loving Subjects

, that we have, with the Advice of our Said Privy Council, granted our Letters Patent, under our Great Seal of Great Britain,

to erect, within the Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us by the said Treaty,

Four distinct and separate Governments, styled and

called by the names of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada

,

and limited and bounded as follows

, viz.

[emphasis added]

So the Proclamation was an assertion of sovereignty only over subjects of Great Britain and only over the specific colonies of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada. The fact at the time was that even though the British were claiming sovereignty over those four colonies, much of the territory within them had still not been ceded by the Indians and so the Crown gave notice that Indians living and moving within those colonial territories "...not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds..." were free to move and hunt and fish without interference.

So for instance, the Royal Proclamation was not implying in this part that Indians or their lands in all of North America were subject to Great Britain's control or sovereignty.

The opening paragraph of the Proclamation is clear as to what land the British Crown laid a claim on - that is the land ceaded by France and Spain in the Treaty of Paris. From the English version of the treaty

Section 4: His Most Christian Majesty [note from me: the King of France] renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadia in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with all its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain: Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence

Section 7: In order to re­establish peace on solid and durable foundations, and to remove for ever all subject of dispute with regard to the limits of the British and French territories on the continent of America; it is agreed, that, for the future, the confines between the dominions of his Britannick Majesty and those of his Most Christian Majesty, in that part of the world, shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle of the River Mississippi, from its source to the river Iberville, and from thence, by a line drawn along the middle of this river, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea; and for this purpose, the Most Christian King cedes in full right, and guaranties to his Britannick Majesty the river and port of the Mobile, and every thing which he possesses, or ought to possess, on the left side of the river Mississippi, except the town of New Orleans and the island in which it is situated, which shall remain to France [note from me: the cession of Lousiana by France to Spain was not known at that time]

Section 9: The Most Christian King cedes and guaranties to his Britannick Majesty, in full right, the islands of Grenada, and the Grenadines (...) And the partition of the islands called neutral, is agreed and fixed, so that those of St. Vincent, Dominico, and Tobago, shall remain in full right to Great Britain, and that of St. Lucia shall be delivered to France

Section 20: In consequence of the restitution stipulated in the preceding article [note~ restitution of Cuba to Spain¨, his Catholick Majesty [note~ the King of Spain] cedes and guaranties, in full right, to his Britannick Majesty, Florida, with Fort St. Augustin, and the Bay of Pensacola, as well as all that Spain possesses on the continent of North America, to the East or to the South East of the river Mississippi

What the British Government considered it had sovereignty over is pretty clear.

In the second part of your quote:

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of

Our

said

Three

{notice the anomaly here...Three vs. Four in the first paragraph is likely because the surrender of Quebec was hastily added after the Proclamation was prepared}

new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

Also has its limitations. In order to understand what the British were saying here, especially the part "to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion", one must understand what led up to the the Royal Proclamation, mainly a series of Silver Covenant Chain Treaties which GB uses the sames kinds of language to address Six Nations' complaints of encroachment into their territories. What this particular part really implies is that the crown will use its "Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion" to guarantee that the lands will remain Indian lands, apart and separate from the Crown lands under the proclamation. To confirm this the Proclamation goes further in prohibiting all British subjects from occupancy or use:

And

We do

hereby

strictly forbid

, on Pain of our Displeasure,

all our

loving

Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession

of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And they also guarantee through the proclamation for the sake of those same Indians they are protecting that those who have moved onto their territories will be removed:

And We do

further strictly enjoin and

require all Persons

whatever

who have

either wilfully or inadvertently

seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described

. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith

to remove themselves from such Settlements.

and,

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and

to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians

: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and

to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent

,

We do

, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and

require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians

,

within those parts of our Colonies

where We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians...

First about the 4 colonies vs 3 colines. No contradiction whatsoever - the forth colony was Granada

Clearly, and there is no dispute to that, the British Crown intended some land to be reserved for First Nations, to be owned by them, and to be closed to white settlement. That being said, the meaning of "reserved under our Sovereignty" is clear - the British Government considered itself to be the Sovereign over the land in question. Have it considered itself to be simply the "protector" of the First Nations, it would have said so. Had it considered that the First Nations were Sovereign, it would have said so. Actually, if had had considered First Nations to be independant, sovereign nations, there would not have been this clause of the Treaty of Utretch, referred to in negociations between France and Great Britain in the 1750`s (original French text, trnaslation mine)

Les habitants du Canada et autres sujets de la France, ne molesteront point à l'avenir les cinq nations ou cantons des Indiens soumis à la G.B., ni les autres nations de l'Amérique amies de cette couronne. The inhabitants of Canada and the other French subjects will not in the future molest the Five Nations or cantons of the Indians subjects of Great Britain.

As for the claim of yours that Indian land being separated from Crown Land means that the British Crown did not assert a claim of sovereignty, it is based on a misunderstanding of what Crown Land means in the first place. Crown Land is land OWNED by the Crown.

The limits of the Colonial to those 4 colonies also limit the jurisdiction of GB over N.A.. In 1757 GB created the Mitchell Map which identifies all the non-colonial lands as specific Indian tribes boundaries, and not that all of what is now Southern Ontario is Six Nations territory. The Royal Proclamation Maps, while less detailed, show the same things.

Trying the Mitchell Map trick again? The Mitchell Map was in essence a propaganda exercise aimed at furthering British claims in North America against French territorial claims. It was no a confirmation of the sovereignty of any First Nations, nor was it intended as such. Even the exact title of the map makes the intent of its maker quite clear. The theory that the map was somehow a layout of ground work for the Royal Proclamation of 1763 would pre-suppose that the British already knew in 1750 (when a preliminary edition of the map was done) or in 1755 (when the work on the 1757 map was actually started) that there would be a war, and the the British would win (a rather doubtful proposition in 1757, when the French armies had their First Nation allies had the British run scared).

So the point all in all, is that the Crown did not take or hold sovereignty over Indians, or their lands.

It does not.

And to adequately illustrate this I refer to Lord Denning of the High Court in 1982 (prior to repatriation of the Constitution) when he states that aboriginal title under the Royal Proclamation was a "plenum dominium" and "superior to all others".

As well, the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms that aboriginal people are sovereign, albeit in a round about way in Sect. 35

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

Acknowledging this means that Indians had the independence, autonomy and sovereignty to make nation to nation treaties with the Crown for surrender of the "personal and usufructary" rights at their will. The SCoC further reinforces this when it ruled in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, by extracting mandatory components that had to be present in order to determine whether they would consider if a surrender was valid. One of those prerequisites was that the First Nations and to fully desire and initiate a surrender on their own, without influence from the Indian agents, or any other party.

The examples you point to clearly refer to LAND TITLES, that is to the OWNERSHIP of the land, a separate concept from sovereingty. If Lord Denning or the Supreme Court of Canada have clearly stated "First Nations are sovereign", please free to show it.

So there is no doubt that the Crown saw the Indians as separate and independent people apart from the sovereignty of the Crown.

Except when one actually read the Proclamation in context, and analyses the actions of the British Government towards First Nations as well as its stance during the ngotiations of various treaties first with France then with the United States.

While it could be argued (and that's another debate) that the existence of treaties are proff of a soveriegn nation to sovereign nation relationship, such a proof cannot be found in the Royal Proclamation.

Edited October 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[eyeball]

We are nation that recognizes the rule of law, and the basic law of the land says we have to treat with the native peoples as sovereign nations under the protection of the Crown. Unfortunately for all of us this was ignored for a couple of centuries in many cases (though there was certainly precedent even prior to the Proclamation for seeking treaties with the native peoples who lived in an territories claimed by or effectively controlled by the Crown; ie. the Covenant Chain), and now in those cases where treaties were not signed we're in a position, bound by long-standing precedent and constitutional requirement, to treat with them.

Such is the price of our political/democratic system's capacity for official corruption or more to the point, the inability to do anything about it until it's too late. This after all is the only thing that accounts for the historical wreckage that our generation has been left to clean up.

Is there no similarly fundamental Proclamation that we or the Monarchy can use to hold a government accountable with? The least that we or the Monarchy should do is make one in hopes that Canadians a few hundred years from now could begin applying it. That would be the incremental thing to do.

The phrase if I knew then what I know now sure comes to mind, no doubt it's a phrase that's been with humans for thousands of years. I recall about 30 years ago when a native fellow from the reserve down the way came walking up our street, he was obviously quite nukchoo but happily pointing about and seemingly encompassing everything within his sight and proclaiming "this is all our's"! I asked him what he meant and he asked back "you mean you didn't get a letter from the government"? I just shrugged and figured he was...nukchoo. He laughed and carried on his way. What he was saying and it's importance started dawning on me about 15 years later.

We finally got our letter a year or so ago. I think some of the major decisions I made in life 20 - 25 years ago would have been a lot different if we'd known what was coming at us 30 years ago.

We would be doing the same disservice to future generations that past generations did to us by not bringing our governance to heel now.

Edited October 31, 2010 by eyeball

[CANADIEN]

Perhaps it would be easier to simply give ALL of Canada to the First Nations!

Lock, stock and barrel. With all assets and all DEBTS!

Then we demand THEY support US!

The problem is that the way they all to often look after themselves implies that millions would starve to death across Canada if they actually were in control!

I'm sure that the dead at least would be "spiritually" better off and would have felt more "tied to the land".

The way THEY have treated themselves? Not to deny tha tis there abuse, mismanagement and all in reserves at this point in time... But this a by-product of a system that was designed to destroy

Frist nation identities and treated (and still treats) them as wards of the Crown unable to manage their own affairs.

Edited October 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Shwa]

Perhaps it would be easier to simply give ALL of Canada to the First Nations!

Lock, stock and barrel. With all assets and all DEBTS!

Then we demand THEY support US!

The problem is that the way they all to often look after themselves implies that millions would starve to death across Canada if they actually were in control!

Ah, a previous statement by you in another thread makes perfect sense now:

I support native rights too! I also agree with many of their issues with bands across the country.

I'm sure that the dead at least would be "spiritually" better off and would have felt more "tied to the land".

Awwww, now, see there? That is the deep rooted cynicism we have all come to love and cherish. You go Wild Bill!

[Wild Bill]

Awwww, now, see there? That is the deep rooted cynicism we have all come to love and cherish. You go Wild Bill!

You may call me a cynic if you wish but I have found that cynicism, skepticism and the logic of common sense serve me well with politicians, lawyers, car salesmen, carnival barkers, Jehovah Witnesses at my door and Caledonia Six Nation protester apologists on this board.

Yes, I know. The native protesters did nothing wrong and only handed townspeople flowers. Several thousand eyewitnesses be damned. Videotape be damned. Photographs as well, along with official documents from the Ontario Provincial Government and OPP chiefs.

Also, there was no Holocaust, Man never actually landed on the Moon and Elvis went home to outer space.

I would find it easier to accept the last 3 points than deny that most of the native protest in Caledonia was mere racist thuggery.

[charter.rights]

Correction. YOU are committed the mistake of having the Proclamation of 1763 say things it does not say.

See? You have fallen into the trap of trying to interpret the Proclamation from only a colonial point of view. The Supreme Court has not been so naive. In fact the Court has stated on a number of occasions that the interpretation must consider, sometimes with equal or better weight, the oral promises made in the negotiation of those treaties. And since the Proclamation did not nullify any treaties made previously there are lots of external considerations that MUST be applied in interpreting the Proclamation. So over time the SCoC has refined the interpretations and clarified meaning or many parts, in favour of aboriginal rights.

What the British Government considered it had sovereignty over is pretty clear.

Those colonies did not include any land or natives outside of the limits of said boundaries and so sovereignty was limited to the same area.

That being said, the meaning of "reserved under our Sovereignty" is clear - the British Government considered itself to be the Sovereign over the land in question. Have it considered itself to be simply the "protector" of the First Nations, it would have said so. Had it considered that the First Nations were Sovereign, it would have said so. Actually, if had had considered First Nations to be independant, sovereign nations, there would not have been this clause of the Treaty of Utretch, referred to in negociations between France and Great Britain in the 1750`s (original French text, trnaslation mine)

No, they wouldn't. Clearly the treaties leading up to the Proclamation recognized sovereignty of Six Nations in particular, when they took possession of the territory in the Nanfan treaty of 1701. In fact the term "sovereign protection" (do you see the resemblance here?) was first coined in the Howard Treaty of 1684 which provided Six Nations clear passage through all territories into Canada for trade and it guaranteed that the British would keep the Algonquin out of New England. That treaty did not take authority over Six Nations but GB used its sovereignty (which at that point was not clearly defined) to protect Six Nations interests.

As for the claim of yours that Indian land being separated from Crown Land means that the British Crown did not assert a claim of sovereignty, it is based on a misunderstanding of what Crown Land means in the first place. Crown Land is land OWNED by the Crown.

Nope. The assumption of sovereignty is not the same thing as being sovereign over aboriginal people. IF the Crown intended to take possession of Indians and their lands, they would have treatied with them over it. There are no such treaties that pre-exist the Proclamation.

Lord Denning 1982:

“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.”

The Crown would have follow custom and held some great ceremony, if their intention was to declare sovereignty over Indian Lands. They did not.

Trying the Mitchell Map trick again? The Mitchell Map was in essence a propaganda exercise aimed at furthering British claims in North America against French territorial claims. It was no a confirmation of the sovereignty of any First Nations, nor was it intended as such. Even the exact title of the map makes the intent of its maker quite clear. The theory that the map was somehow a layout of ground work for the Royal Proclamation of 1763 would pre-suppose that the British already knew in 1750 (when a preliminary edition of the map was done) or in 1755 (when the work on the 1757 map was actually started) that there would be a war, and the the British would win (a rather doubtful proposition in 1757, when the French armies had their First Nation allies had the British run scared).

I am not taking the Mitchell Map on its own. The fact is the Royal Proclamation declared 7 years later just happened to include the "Boundaries of Six Nations" as including all of southern Ontario. You would think that if the Crown did not intend to recognize Six Nations territorial sovereignty, would, not have so clearly stated it on the map, included with the Royal Proclamtion.

They did not.

The examples you point to clearly refer to LAND TITLES, that is to the OWNERSHIP of the land, a separate concept from sovereingty. If Lord Denning or the Supreme Court of Canada have clearly stated "First Nations are sovereign", please free to show it.

If you can find a treaty or quote in history where any Indian nations capitulated please feel free to quote it.

Do you see the problem. From your colonial mindset, all you can see is the legal magic created to make you believe that the King took sovereignty over Indians and their lands. They did not, and it is a fact that Six Nations has a long history exerting their claim to be sovereign, and having control over their lands apart from the Crown. One's assumption does not negate the sovereignty of another, not in international law and not in the common law of the day.

Lord Mansfield C J in 1774:

“A country conquered by the British arms becomes a Dominion of the King in the right of his Crown: and, therefore, necessarily subject to the legislature, the Parliament of Great Britain....that the laws of a conquered country continue in force until they are altered by the conqueror...”

So Dominion only comes to the King when a country is conquered. N.A. was not conquered and it was reinforced by Lord Denning when he saod that we did not conquer aboriginal people, but treated them with respect and non-interference.

While it could be argued (and that's another debate) that the existence of treaties are proff of a soveriegn nation to sovereign nation relationship, such a proof cannot be found in the Royal Proclamation.

There was no need to because the Royal Proclamation was clearly and unequivocally aimed only at British subjects:

We have thought fit

, with the Advice of our Privy Council.

to issue this our Royal Proclamation

, hereby to publish and declare

to all our loving Subjects

...

One would have to assume before the Proclamation that any Indian nation gave away its sovereignty to Great Britain. Again, if you can show where this was the case, then please feel free to provide it.

Edited October 31, 2010 by charter.rights

[Saipan]

We are nation that recognizes the rule of law

Most of us just don't recognize the difference between law and justice.

"I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law so much as for the right."

. . . . Henry David Thoreau

"Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you."

- - - Benjamin Franklin

[CANADIEN]

See? You have fallen into the trap of trying to interpret the Proclamation from only a colonial point of view. The Supreme Court has not been so naive. In fact the Court has stated on a number of occasions that the interpretation must consider, sometimes with equal or better weight, the oral promises made in the negotiation of those treaties. And since the Proclamation did not nullify any treaties made previously there are lots of external considerations that MUST be applied in interpreting the Proclamation. So over time the SCoC has refined the interpretations and clarified meaning or many parts, in favour of aboriginal rights.

Those colonies did not include any land or natives outside of the limits of said boundaries and so sovereignty was limited to the same area.

No, they wouldn't. Clearly the treaties leading up to the Proclamation recognized sovereignty of Six Nations in particular, when they took possession of the territory in the Nanfan treaty of 1701. In fact the term "sovereign protection" (do you see the resemblance here?) was first coined in the Howard Treaty of 1684 which provided Six Nations clear passage through all territories into Canada for trade and it guaranteed that the British would keep the Algonquin out of New England. That treaty did not take authority over Six Nations but GB used its sovereignty (which at that point was not clearly defined) to protect Six Nations interests.

Nope. The assumption of sovereignty is not the same thing as being sovereign over aboriginal people. IF the Crown intended to take possession of Indians and their lands, they would have treatied with them over it. There are no such treaties that pre-exist the Proclamation.

Lord Denning 1982:

“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.”

The Crown would have follow custom and held some great ceremony, if their intention was to declare sovereignty over Indian Lands. They did not.

I am not taking the Mitchell Map on its own. The fact is the Royal Proclamation declared 7 years later just happened to include the "Boundaries of Six Nations" as including all of southern Ontario. You would think that if the Crown did not intend to recognize Six Nations territorial sovereignty, would, not have so clearly stated it on the map, included with the Royal Proclamtion.

They did not.

If you can find a treaty or quote in history where any Indian nations capitulated please feel free to quote it.

Do you see the problem. From your colonial mindset, all you can see is the legal magic created to make you believe that the King took sovereignty over Indians and their lands. They did not, and it is a fact that Six Nations has a long history exerting their claim to be sovereign, and having control over their lands apart from the Crown. One's assumption does not negate the sovereignty of another, not in international law and not in the common law of the day.

Lord Mansfield C J in 1774:

“A country conquered by the British arms becomes a Dominion of the King in the right of his Crown: and, therefore, necessarily subject to the legislature, the Parliament of Great Britain....that the laws of a conquered country continue in force until they are altered by the conqueror...”

So Dominion only comes to the King when a country is conquered. N.A. was not conquered and it was reinforced by Lord Denning when he saod that we did not conquer aboriginal people, but treated them with respect and non-interference.

There was no need to because the Royal Proclamation was clearly and unequivocally aimed only at British subjects:

We have thought fit

, with the Advice of our Privy Council.

to issue this our Royal Proclamation

, hereby to publish and declare

to all our loving Subjects

...

One would have to assume before the Proclamation that any Indian nation gave away its sovereignty to Great Britain. Again, if you can show where this was the case, then please feel free to provide it.

Feel free to keep not seeing in the Royal Proclamation things that are there, and have other people say things they did not say. The text of the Royal Proclamation clearly constitute both a guarantee of protection for First Nations and their rights, and a claim of sovereignty. I will not argue that the British Crown had a right to lay such a claim, but the fact remain that it did.

BTW, care to show where one can find the map that came with the Proclamation? There is no hint to the existence of such a map in the Proclamation itself.

[Saipan]

"The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it

has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest

limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the

right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext

whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink

of destruction."

- - - - Henry St.George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on

the Laws of England."

[charter.rights]

"The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it

has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest

limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the

right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext

whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink

of destruction."

- - - - Henry St.George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on

the Laws of England."

Good then you agree with me. Aboriginal people have a right to bear arms and are not limited by gun registration or hunting laws outside of their own nations. Of courser we're not so lucky.

[Saipan]

Good then you agree with me. Aboriginal people have a right to bear arms and are not limited by gun registration or hunting laws outside of their own nations.

Like everybody else

Edited October 31, 2010 by Saipan

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The myth is one thing, the reality another. I will venture to say that what was intended was that the Crown held all land, and specifically gave away small defined pieces to native peoples. I will further suggest that one of the legally entitled representatives of those native peoples, in fact sold vast fractions of the disputed Six Nations lands during hard times. Thats right the land was sold to citizens by the Six Nations themselves, but of course now they want it back. Good luck with that. When the courts decide to do that, I will leave the nation myself. I mean really when the rul of law ceases to protect and begins to oppress the citizens then it is time to go.

[Wild Bill]

I mean really when the rul of law ceases to protect and begins to oppress the citizens then it is time to go.

If you read Blatchford's book Jerry, you will see that that condition has been met! Maybe it is time to pack our bags.

I fail to see how anyone could read that book and still vote for McGuinty!

[Saipan]

When the courts decide to do that, I will leave the nation myself. I mean really when the rul of law ceases to protect and begins to oppress the citizens then it is time to go.

I'd say that's the time to shoot back. I left once, won't do that again.

[charter.rights]

The myth is one thing, the reality another. I will venture to say that what was intended was that the Crown held all land, and specifically gave away small defined pieces to native peoples. I will further suggest that one of the legally entitled representatives of those native peoples, in fact sold vast fractions of the disputed Six Nations lands during hard times. Thats right the land was sold to citizens by the Six Nations themselves, but of course now they want it back. Good luck with that. When the courts decide to do that, I will leave the nation myself. I mean really when the rul of law ceases to protect and begins to oppress the citizens then it is time to go.

Full of myth Jerry. Joseph Brant could not sell the land to anyone, as it was illegal for any British subject to purchase land. Only a surrender to the Crown was possible and that never took place.

The Royal Proclamation set out most of the Continental USA and all of Canada (save and except Hudsons Bay Company territory as "Indian Lands" reserved for them, for their exclusive use and title (go back and read all the stuff Canadien and I have been presenting. All of it represents the reality today. Land was never surrendered to the Crown by Six Nation who were clearly the title holders at the time of the Proclamation.

[charter.rights]

If you read Blatchford's book Jerry, you will see that that condition has been met! Maybe it is time to pack our bags.

I fail to see how anyone could read that book and still vote for McGuinty!

The rule of law was being followed and there was no two-tier justice. That is simply another myth.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms IS the Rule of Law and Six Nations had a right to stop development that was occurring on their unsurrendered land and compel the government to negotiate with them. They were successful in meeting that objective, and as such were within their rights to block roads, to erect barricades and patrol the site to guarantee their security. The only thing the OPP could (and did)do was to keep the peace. That was their only role to play, legally.