Major Bust On Reserves In Quebec

[Shwa]

"Not Subject to any siezure under any legal process".

That means it superceeds, both Provincial and Federal Laws.

No it doesn't and you aren't reading the Indian Act properly. Let me quote it directly so you can get a clearer picture:

89. (1) Subject to this Act, the real and personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve is not subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band.

Thus "an Indian" can request the raid and it be perfectly legal within the context of the Indian Act, itself a "Federal" law. No doubt that many Indians, aka the band, asked for this sort of legal action to take place, which was in conformance with provincial law.

I think you are forgeting that First Nations have Treaty and Aboriginal Rights. Nothing in Canadian law would ever superceed any of those rights.

Here is a test for you: without any reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Constitution of Canada nor the Indian Act - all "Federal Laws" please tell me - with accurate citations - what "Aboriginal Rights" the "First Nations" possess. Take as much time as you need.

ITs like The U.S.A charging Canada for genocide of First Nations people. U.S has No jurisdiction on Canadian Territory. Treatys were Nation to Nation basis. First Nations would need to charge them under there own laws, and judicial system, like the U.S.A has allowed First Nations to set up in the States.

Not quite, as per the Indian Act, which I have already pointed out.

It would be the same as Canada siezing the 15 billion dollar poppy fields in Afgahnistan, then charging them with producing and selling Heroin. Since Canada went to Afgahnistan, the poppy industry grew from a 6 billion dollar business to a 15 billion dollar business.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with poppy fields in Afghanistan. Stick to the issue at hand.

[Oleg Bach]

No it doesn't and you aren't reading the Indian Act properly. Let me quote it directly so you can get a clearer picture:

Thus "an Indian" can request the raid and it be perfectly legal within the context of the Indian Act, itself a "Federal" law. No doubt that many Indians, aka the band, asked for this sort of legal action to take place, which was in conformance with provincial law.

Here is a test for you: without any reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Constitution of Canada nor the Indian Act - all "Federal Laws" please tell me - with accurate citations - what "Aboriginal Rights" the "First Nations" possess. Take as much time as you need.

Not quite, as per the Indian Act, which I have already pointed out.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with poppy fields in Afghanistan. Stick to the issue at hand.

If the "allies" were truely concerned about the poppy fields in Afghanistan they would have killed every last plant instead of killing every last Taliban they could set their eyes on...no money no funny - You can't buy ammo without cash. The first Nations people are just copying what their former white masters do and did. Estabishment can partake in crimminal activity and it is deemed legal - by them. First Nations are like bikers - shave off the beard and remove the tatoos and you have the same stuff that the big dogs on Bay Street are made of. There is no difference in selling a million dollars of Oxycodone legally to people who don't really need it....to selling a million dollars in street dope - to people who really don't need it.

This problem will not go away - It's about money - If the powers that be had total control over illegal drugs and guns - and were able to tax the revenue easily - it would ALL be legal.

[pinko]

Under section 87,88,89 of the Indian Act.

" personal property of an indian is not subjected to seizure by any legal process."

The Indian Act superceeds both Provincial, and Federal Laws.

Explain to me how that works when there is a homicide on a reserve. Are you suggesting the Crown has no right of seizure of a weapon?

[Oleg Bach]

Explain to me how that works when there is a homicide on a reserve. Are you suggesting the Crown has no right of seizure of a weapon?

The crown can sieze a weapon because if they suspect it was used in a murder they have to take it away in order to "protect" the poor natives from themselves and any potential further injury - Getting rid of the crime on reserves could only be done under the legitimate or the guise of benevolence that is contained in the act.

[eyeball]

The hash was made by monk like guys who put a bit of love into it...I remember the stuff - It smelled like some holy incense...and you are wrong if you want to compare the two. It was not the wheel chair make you nuts crap..it was mild and it was generated under the sun with out the pushy assistance of greed.

Todays dope - I call greed weed - It is genetically altered - it is chemically pushed along to grow faster - the people who sell the stuff are basically evil proviteers - and that evil glows out of the product. I heard a biolgist say that the new pot is not Cannabis Sativa...he had another name for it - For people to stick to their guns with all this "natural" justification are totally delluded..It is now a buisness - there is no doctrine of peace and love in it's use - and lastly - the stuff is nasty and habit forming...Remembering the bygone era of pot use - I really do not remember there being as many chronic users.

It's funny you should use the word natural. Weed has been pushed in the direction it's gone by the same thing that pushes everything, natural selection. Hash was easier to hide and transport and now weed is too. Prohibition has simply caused the evolution of traits that lead to survival of the fittest. Smaller denser more concentrated things are less detectable and they survive the search for them. The same thing is happening to the people who sell the stuff, the constant pressure to catch them makes them evolve so they become faster, tougher and smarter.

This pressure to compete and survive can just as easily be described in economic terms - just replace the word survivor with innovator.

This is why it is so accurate to compare the effort to defy the basic laws of supply and demand with the effort to defy the law of gravity. To these we can now add the deluded belief that we can overcome the force of evolution.

Good luck with that.

[Chippewa]

The crown can sieze a weapon because if they suspect it was used in a murder they have to take it away in order to "protect" the poor natives from themselves and any potential further injury - Getting rid of the crime on reserves could only be done under the legitimate or the guise of benevolence that is contained in the act.

The Criminal Code is honored in every First Nation. The fact the "Indian Act" contains no road laws, people still get charged just like any other place.

The fact you point out that gitting rid of crime on the reserves is a problem, why not solve all the crimes that happened in the past such as the Residential School Murders, Genocide, Abduction, and Ethnic Cleansing, both Churches and the Canadian Government are guilty of first.

First Nations need there own Justice system, Supreme Court System, and Constitution which is empowered under section 35 under the Constitution. If organizations can still charge Nazi Warcriminals 60 years later, im sure racking up a bunch of priests, and politicians responsible for both the precise killing and murders, medical experimentation, torchure, rape, bioligical warfare and biological terrorism they are both guilty of, can be charged.

The Indian Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act

1881: Amended to make officers of the Indian Department, including Indian Agents, legal justices of the peace, able to enforce regulations. The following year they were granted the same legal power as magistrates.[3] Further amended to prohibit the sale of agricultural produce by Indians in Prairie Provinces without an appropriate permit from an Indian agent.[3] This prohibition is, as of 2008[update], still included in the Indian Act, though it is not enforced.[4]

1884: Amended to prevent elected band leaders who have been deposed from office from being re-elected.

1885: Amended to prohibit religious ceremonies (such as potlatches) and dances (such as Tamanawas dances)[5][6]

1894: Amended to remove band control of non-natives living on reserve. This power now rested exclusively in the hands of the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs.[7]

1895: Amended to outlaw all dances, ceremonies and festivals that involved the wounding of animals or humans, or the giving away of money or goods.[6]

1905: Amended to allow aboriginal people to be removed from reserves near towns with more than 8,000 residents.[8]

1906: Amended to allow 50 % of the sale price of reserve lands to be given to band members, following the surrender of that land.

1911: Amended to allow municipalities and companies to expropriate portions of reserves, without surrender, for roads, railways, and other public works.[8] Further amended to allow a judge to move an entire reserve away from a municipality if it was deemed "expedient."[7] These amendments were also known as the Oliver Act.

1914: Amended to require western Indians to seek official permission before appearing in "aboriginal costume" in any "dance, show, exhibition, stampede or pageant."[3]

1918: Amended to allow the Superintendent-General to lease out uncultivated reserve lands to non-aboriginals if the new lease-holder used it for farming or pasture.[7]

1920: Amended to allow the Department of Indian Affairs to ban hereditary rule of bands.[8] Further amended to allow for the involuntary enfranchisement (and loss of treaty rights) of any status Indian considered fit by the Department of Indian Affairs, without the possession of land previously required for those living off reserve. Repealed two years later but reintroduced in a modified form in 1933.[7]

1927: Amended to prevent anyone (aboriginal or otherwise) from soliciting funds for Indian legal claims without a special license from the Superintendent-General. This effectively prevented any First Nation from pursuing aboriginal land claims.[3]

1930: Amended to prevent a pool hall owner from allowing entrance to an Indian who "by inordinate frequenting of a pool room either on or off an Indian reserve misspends or wastes his time or means to the detriment of himself, his family or household". The owner could face a fine or a one-month jail term.[3]

1936: Amended to allow Indian agents to direct band council meetings, and to cast a deciding vote in the event of a tie.[7]

1951: Amended to allow the sale and slaughter of livestock without an Indian Agent permit. Status women are allowed to vote in band elections. Attempts to pursue land claims and the use of religious ceremonies (such as potlatches) are no longer prohibited by law. Further amended for the compulsory "enfranchisement" of First Nations women who married non-status men (including Métis, Inuit and non-status Indian, as well as non-aboriginal men), thus causing them to lose their status, and denying Indian status to any children from the marriage.[7]

1961: Amended to end the compulsory "enfranchisement" of men or bands.

1985: Amended to allow First Nations women the right to keep or regain their status even after "marrying out" and to grant status to the children (but not grandchildren) of such a marriage. This amendment was debated in Parliament as Bill C-31. Under this amendment, full status Indians are referred to as 6-1. A child of a marriage between a status (6–1) person and a non-status person qualifies for 6-2 (half) status, but if the child in turn married another 6-2 or a non-status person, the child is non-status. If a 6–2 marries a 6–1 or another 6-2, the children revert to 6–1 status. Blood quantum is disregarded, or rather, replaced with a "two generation cut-off clause".[9] Under amendments to the Indian Act (Bill C-31), Michel Band members have individual Indian status restored. No provision made in Bill C-31 for the restoration of status under the Band enfranchisement provision that was applied to the Michel Band. According to Thomas King, around half of status Indians are currently marrying non-status people, meaning this legislation accomplishes complete legal assimilation in a matter of a few generations.[9]

2000: Amended to allow band members living off reserves to vote in band elections and referendums.[10]

As you can see, the Indian Act is the same as the Aparthied Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_legislation_in_South_Africa

The "apartheid laws" were enacted following the 1948 South African election and subsequent declaration of "grand apartheid". The principal pieces of legislation to enforce apartheid were as follows:[5]

[edit] 1940sProhibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Act No 55 of 1949

[edit] 1950sEarly 1950s

Immorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23)

Population Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950

Group Areas Act, Act No 41 of 1950

Suppression of Communism Act, Act No 44 of 1950

Bantu Building Workers Act, Act No 27 of 1951

Separate Representation of Voters Act, Act No 46 of 1951

Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, Act No 52 of 1951

Bantu Authorities Act, Act No 68 of 1951

Natives Laws Amendment Act of 1952

Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, Act No 67 of 1952

Mid 1950s

Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953

Bantu Education Act, Act No 47 of 1953

Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953

Natives Resettlement Act, Act No 19 of 1954

Group Areas Development Act, Act No 69 of 1955

Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, Act No 64 of 1956

Late 1950s

Bantu Investment Corporation Act, Act No 34 of 1959

Extension of University Education Act, Act 45 of 1959

Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, Act No 46 of 1959

[edit] 1960sColoured Persons Communal Reserves Act, Act No 3 of 1961

Preservation of Coloured Areas Act, Act No 31 of 1961

Urban Bantu Councils Act, Act No 79 of 1961

Terrorism Act, Act No 83 of 1967

[edit] 1970sBantu Homelands Citizens Act of 1970

So basically the plan is to basically, steal all the land and resources, oppress Both Civilizations, Label them anything but a Human Being.

[pinko]

The crown can sieze a weapon because if they suspect it was used in a murder they have to take it away in order to "protect" the poor natives from themselves and any potential further injury - Getting rid of the crime on reserves could only be done under the legitimate or the guise of benevolence that is contained in the act.

It could also be used for its forensic value and as a potential exhibit in a trial.

[charter.rights]

The Indian Act IS a federal law, so how can it supercede itself?

Section 87 refers only to taxation and is subject to a "nothwithstanding" test.

Section 88 refers to legal rights that say, "...all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act..."

Section 89 refers the illegal seizure of property and is modified so that "...in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band" means that if the Band themselves agreed to the raid, it was perfectly legal seizure.

Furthermore, Section 90 also defines "personal property:"

It would be a tough sell to say that dope grown on the reserve would constitute "personal property" especially since it was obviously trade goods.

Finally, if the dope was actually grown on the reserve, section 93 would apply:

No doubt that there are standing agreements between the Minister and police forces.

The Indian Act is essentially a shadow of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the accumulated rights contained in the Royal Proclamation 1763 and treaties that followed.

Through the Supreme Court and others, the interpretation and or the nullification of certain parts of the Indian Act have been made and so these rulings must be read into the Act.

One of them is that provincial court orders cannot be enforced on any First Nation.

The second is that there are limits to the "laws of general application" being applied on reserve. Custom and Native laws / by-laws often take precedence where they can prove that the laws or traditions are well established. That is why the government and the RCMP are hesitant to get into the tobacco control laws on reserve. As I am sure you are aware, tobacco is a traditional Iroquois product and by right it can be grown, harvested and sold as a right.

Growing and using marijuana by First Nations is by the same right. The Charter question becomes where or not it can be sold to outsiders. I'm sure that at sometime in the past it was sold to the settlers as hemp was a valuable commodity. And I'm sure it was also traded for medicinal use. So the grey area is really what quantities can be harvested and sold?

However, the problem for the RCMP is that R. v. Drybones, basically gave the authority for regulating intoxicants to the Bands and their by-laws over-ride anything we can throw at them. It will be only in absence of these by-laws that will offer some authority to the RCMP but the other problems still exist.

I happen to know that Kahnawake has an intoxicants by-law and it is silent on the use of marijuana. The absence of specific regulation of a product does not give leeway to laws of general application. Silence simply indicates the Band did not want to address it.

There is a Charter challenge coming over the use of provincial search warrants and seizure without Band Council approval. My bet is they will win since no matter how serious the accusations are, the abuse of process is far worse. That is the rule of law.

Edited July 14, 2011 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

The Indian Act is essentially a shadow of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the accumulated rights contained in the Royal Proclamation 1763 and treaties that followed.

There is a Charter challenge coming over the use of provincial search warrants and seizure without Band Council approval. My bet is they will win since no matter how serious the accusations are, the abuse of process is far worse. That is the rule of law.

Well, there's a first! In all the time I've been reading Shwa's posts this is the first time I've EVER seen him contradict a native poster!

I should print this out in a large banner and frame it for my wall!

If this keeps up he might actually become objective! I guess there's hope for everyone.

[Remiel]

Did you mean Shwa or charter.rights?

Edited July 14, 2011 by Remiel

[bloodyminded]

Did you mean Shwa or charter.rights?

He means Shwa, but he quoted charter.rights.

[Wild Bill]

He means Shwa, but he quoted charter.rights.

Yep! I quoted CR 'cuz he was the one Shwa was contradicting . Sorry for not being clear.

[Remiel]

Yep! I quoted CR 'cuz he was the one Shwa was contradicting . Sorry for not being clear.

In that case, I think your remark was rather unfair to Shwa. Even reasonable people have issues for which they have entrenched beliefs, and if Shwa is native it is only natural that some of his entrenced beliefs be in relation to that. Your comment may have been about this issue, but it seemed more like a general indictment. And in any case, if you do not think you and I are biased on this issue... well, then you are not being very objective, .

[Oleg Bach]

It's funny you should use the word natural. Weed has been pushed in the direction it's gone by the same thing that pushes everything, natural selection. Hash was easier to hide and transport and now weed is too. Prohibition has simply caused the evolution of traits that lead to survival of the fittest. Smaller denser more concentrated things are less detectable and they survive the search for them. The same thing is happening to the people who sell the stuff, the constant pressure to catch them makes them evolve so they become faster, tougher and smarter.

This pressure to compete and survive can just as easily be described in economic terms - just replace the word survivor with innovator.

This is why it is so accurate to compare the effort to defy the basic laws of supply and demand with the effort to defy the law of gravity. To these we can now add the deluded belief that we can overcome the force of evolution.

Good luck with that.

Get real - I knew of dealers that the police were aware of. These enterprisers operated for years without being bothered. There is a lack of political will to deal with the problem. Take cocaine sales for instance - The money works it's way into the banking system and the banks love it. As for your theory about survival of the fittest and dealers and growers or importers being stronger and faster...I don't see that - those that choose this line of buisness were always people to stupid to make a good living using their brains.. They found an area in buisness where the melting of brains and human weakness through addiction and artifical need was lucrative.

If you honestly believe that crimminality and being a total parasite on the weak is a force of evolution than you are a scarey person - but sadly typical of our banking elite also who think the same way...Once one segiment begins to feed on another segiment of the population it is auto-cannibalism taking place - no some grand and noble idea of evolution - Let me suggest to you that you chop of your own leg and eat it for supper...that would be highly evolved...don't yah think?

[Wild Bill]

In that case, I think your remark was rather unfair to Shwa. Even reasonable people have issues for which they have entrenched beliefs, and if Shwa is native it is only natural that some of his entrenced beliefs be in relation to that. Your comment may have been about this issue, but it seemed more like a general indictment. And in any case, if you do not think you and I are biased on this issue... well, then you are not being very objective, .

Unfair? I dunno. Fairness is an opinion. Is it true? Well, I'm not about to make a big research project out of it but my statement stands. I have been reading Shwa's posts since he first showed up under that alias. I have never, ever seen him oppose any stand, position or historical claim made by someone who appears to be an aboriginal spokesman.

My comment is not about having bias. It is about objectivity. I too likely have some biases but there are many times I agree with a native issue. Sometimes I post such agreement here on MLW. I've just never seen Shwa do the same. I pointed this out to him some weeks back and he got rather upset. Perhaps this instance is related. Whatever, I do think this is a positive thing. I may not agree with everything Shwa says but he obviously has a great deal of knowledge of many things. If he were less predictable it would be much more worthwhile to pay him heed.

[Oleg Bach]

Chippawa seems to know the law - lot of good it did him or her. The sad part of viewing natives as sub-human is now in part born on the sholders of the native - Many have been so beaten down over a few generations that they themselves view themselves as sub-human and accept their lot as normal. Recently I saw a grand and noble man from Manitoba...a native - He had forgotten that he was a king and was wandering about as a crazed beggar..how do you fix that?

[Chippewa]

The Indian Act is essentially a shadow of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the accumulated rights contained in the Royal Proclamation 1763 and treaties that followed.

Through the Supreme Court and others, the interpretation and or the nullification of certain parts of the Indian Act have been made and so these rulings must be read into the Act.

One of them is that provincial court orders cannot be enforced on any First Nation.

The second is that there are limits to the "laws of general application" being applied on reserve. Custom and Native laws / by-laws often take precedence where they can prove that the laws or traditions are well established. That is why the government and the RCMP are hesitant to get into the tobacco control laws on reserve. As I am sure you are aware, tobacco is a traditional Iroquois product and by right it can be grown, harvested and sold as a right.

Growing and using marijuana by First Nations is by the same right. The Charter question becomes where or not it can be sold to outsiders. I'm sure that at sometime in the past it was sold to the settlers as hemp was a valuable commodity. And I'm sure it was also traded for medicinal use. So the grey area is really what quantities can be harvested and sold?

However, the problem for the RCMP is that R. v. Drybones, basically gave the authority for regulating intoxicants to the Bands and their by-laws over-ride anything we can throw at them. It will be only in absence of these by-laws that will offer some authority to the RCMP but the other problems still exist.

I happen to know that Kahnawake has an intoxicants by-law and it is silent on the use of marijuana. The absence of specific regulation of a product does not give leeway to laws of general application. Silence simply indicates the Band did not want to address it.

There is a Charter challenge coming over the use of provincial search warrants and seizure without Band Council approval. My bet is they will win since no matter how serious the accusations are, the abuse of process is far worse. That is the rule of law.

Im not sure what you are talking about. But Indians don't have the right to regulate intoxicants, resources, economy, law making, and others. The only thing they can do under the indian act is make by laws for "Bee Keeping", and "Noxious Weeds". So you are missinformed, about Reserve Regulations.

The Indian Act, allowed the Government to set up Indian Reserves like Concentration Camps. All the while illegally stealing the resources inwhich that are still owned by First Nations in there whole Treaty Areas, or First Nation Countrys. Also the Indian Act never resembled the Charter of Rights and Freedems, the Basis of the Indian Act, never gave First Nations any Rights or Freedoms, but simply eliminated them.

The powers of First Nations are limited. Thus by the constant rulings against the Charter of Human Rights, and Canadian Constitution that only benefit Canada, and never First Nations. First Nations have since coined the Canadian Legal System as a "Kangaroo Court System", because everybody is politically oppointed, with political aspirations, and never for a fair ruling, or the betterment of human life.

Also the Criminal Code handles laws on Marajuana, and is not a problem on a reserve like multi billion dollar drug Industry across Canada.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Chippewa

[Shwa]

There is a Charter challenge coming over the use of provincial search warrants and seizure without Band Council approval. My bet is they will win since no matter how serious the accusations are, the abuse of process is far worse. That is the rule of law.

Perhaps there is a general application that needs to be looked at from a Charter perspective, but the article says this:

"I think we have worked with the SQ on this and the dialogue has improved in our community. - Sohenrise Paul Nicholas, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake”

clearly suggests there was plenty of legal cooperation and the whole operation was conducted via well established processes under both the Indian Act and CCRF.

[charter.rights]

Im not sure what you are talking about. But Indians don't have the right to regulate intoxicants, resources, economy, law making, and others. The only thing they can do under the indian act is make by laws for "Bee Keeping", and "Noxious Weeds". So you are missinformed, about Reserve Regulations.

The Indian Act, allowed the Government to set up Indian Reserves like Concentration Camps. All the while illegally stealing the resources inwhich that are still owned by First Nations in there whole Treaty Areas, or First Nation Countrys. Also the Indian Act never resembled the Charter of Rights and Freedems, the Basis of the Indian Act, never gave First Nations any Rights or Freedoms, but simply eliminated them.

The powers of First Nations are limited. Thus by the constant rulings against the Charter of Human Rights, and Canadian Constitution that only benefit Canada, and never First Nations. First Nations have since coined the Canadian Legal System as a "Kangaroo Court System", because everybody is politically oppointed, with political aspirations, and never for a fair ruling, or the betterment of human life.

Also the Criminal Code handles laws on Marajuana, and is not a problem on a reserve like multi billion dollar drug Industry across Canada.

Indian Act.

Section 85.1 (1)

(By-laws relating to Intoxicants)

Subject to subsection (2), the council of a band may make by-laws

(a) prohibiting the sale, barter, supply or manufacture of intoxicants on thereserve of the band;

( prohibiting any person from being intoxicated on the reserve;

© prohibiting any person from having intoxicants in his possession on thereserve; and

(d) providing for exceptions to any of the prohibitions established pursuant to paragraph ( or ©.

Marijuana is a traditional product that was grown and used by the Haudenosaunee. Under the Charter that remains an aboriginal right.

[charter.rights]

Perhaps there is a general application that needs to be looked at from a Charter perspective, but the article says this:

"I think we have worked with the SQ on this and the dialogue has improved in our community. - Sohenrise Paul Nicholas, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake”

clearly suggests there was plenty of legal cooperation and the whole operation was conducted via well established processes under both the Indian Act and CCRF.

Just the same the Chief over-stepped his authority. Under the Indian Act the Council is required to approve the search and seizure warrants before any outside police or government agency steps foot on the Territory. That violates the accused Charter Rights just as a falsely obtain search warrant, or seizure without warrant would.

[Shwa]

Just the same the Chief over-stepped his authority. Under the Indian Act the Council is required to approve the search and seizure warrants before any outside police or government agency steps foot on the Territory. That violates the accused Charter Rights just as a falsely obtain search warrant, or seizure without warrant would.

Nope. Here is what the Indian Act says, and I quote directly:

89. (1) Subject to this Act, the real and personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve is not subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band.

Note that the seizure can be "at the instance" of "an Indian." The singular cannot be under-emphasized, there it is, in black and white. So while a challenge could be made on the general application of this section, in a wider context, this particular incident was perfectly legal under the terms of the Indian Act.

[charter.rights]

Nope. Here is what the Indian Act says, and I quote directly:

Note that the seizure can be "at the instance" of "an Indian." The singular cannot be under-emphasized, there it is, in black and white. So while a challenge could be made on the general application of this section, in a wider context, this particular incident was perfectly legal under the terms of the Indian Act.

Well, no. You have to read the Supreme Court rulings and the aboriginal jurisprudence that flows from them along with the Indian Act. The Chief of a Band is not an Indian in terms of his position. He is a representative of the Band Council who are representative under the Act of the Band (members)in a limited way. He is really only a Chairman of the Council and only the Council as a whole may act on behalf of the Band.

In Derrickson v. Derrickson the Supreme Court struck down the ability of provincial courts to execute orders on a reserve. While this was related to matrimonial law, it has been applied as a ban on provincial court jurisdiction on reserve.

While S.89(1) does say what you think it says, the problem is about who can actually make a seizure. The Courts have held that no one other than an Indian may make that seizure and third parties are prohibited from participating in making that seizure on behalf of an Indian. So using police and Canadian government officials to make a seizure is illegal. Indians are protected against that.

I have a friend who is an Indian who is fighting his wife's attempts to get hold of his business records and while the Court requested copies of the books, he has been informed he is not required to produce them. He has also obtained an interim injunction against his wife, the Family Responsibility Office and the Provincial Court from executing their orders pending the outcome of the Constitutional question.

In any case my first point stands. It is illegal for the police to make a seizure or execute a search warrant without the full Council's approval and in this case as far as my friends in Kahnawake have told me, there was no BCR authorizing the police actions.

Edited July 21, 2011 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

Well, no. You have to read the Supreme Court rulings and the aboriginal jurisprudence that flows from them along with the Indian Act. The Chief of a Band is not an Indian in terms of his position. He is a representative of the Band Council who are representative under the Act of the Band (members)in a limited way. He is really only a Chairman of the Council and only the Council as a whole may act on behalf of the Band.

This is immaterial. The decision was made at the request of, and in cooperation with, "an Indian and band." From the story, it looks like there was a high level of cooperation too since other First Nations police services were involved.

In Derrickson v. Derrickson the Supreme Court struck down the ability of provincial courts to execute orders on a reserve. While this was related to matrimonial law, it has been applied as a ban on provincial court jurisdiction on reserve.

Provincial jurisdiction is not in question here, but unilateral search and seizures from various police forces. This particular execution was not unilateral which is further suggested by the participation of other FN police forces.

While S.89(1) does say what you think it says, the problem is about who can actually make a seizure. The Courts have held that no one other than an Indian may make that seizure and third parties are prohibited from participating in making that seizure on behalf of an Indian. So using police and Canadian government officials to make a seizure is illegal. Indians are protected against that.

Only when there are unilateral acts, which is not the case here. The Indian Act provides for agreements to be struck between reserve and non-reserve authorities for all kinds of services. No doubt there are cooperative policing agreements for situations just like this.

I have a friend who is an Indian who is fighting his wife's attempts to get hold of his business records and while the Court requested copies of the books, he has been informed he is not required to produce them. He has also obtained an interim injunction against his wife, the Family Responsibility Office and the Provincial Court from executing their orders pending the outcome of the Constitutional question.

Apples/Oranges.

In any case my first point stands. It is illegal for the police to make a seizure or execute a search warrant without the full Council's approval and in this case as far as my friends in Kahnawake have told me, there was no BCR authorizing the police actions.

This doesn't appear to be the case from the published news article which gives the impression of a perfectly legal action by way of the instruments of the Indian Act.

[charter.rights]

This is immaterial. The decision was made at the request of, and in cooperation with, "an Indian and band." From the story, it looks like there was a high level of cooperation too since other First Nations police services were involved.

Provincial jurisdiction is not in question here, but unilateral search and seizures from various police forces. This particular execution was not unilateral which is further suggested by the participation of other FN police forces.

Only when there are unilateral acts, which is not the case here. The Indian Act provides for agreements to be struck between reserve and non-reserve authorities for all kinds of services. No doubt there are cooperative policing agreements for situations just like this.

Apples/Oranges.

This doesn't appear to be the case from the published news article which gives the impression of a perfectly legal action by way of the instruments of the Indian Act.

We'll see. I know a couple of lawyers involved up there and they are suggesting that they have the lawsuit ready to go.

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually there has just been another major bust involving Six Nations/Mohawk reserves, very similar to this one. Once again it involved multiple forces, including Native and also was performed with the cooperation of the band council. If you want I can post a link to the article. Bad times for organized crime lately it would appear.