First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[charter.rights]

This is the kind of gibberish I get from students near the end of an exam when they don't know any more but still have blank pages staring them in the face. They write the craziest stuff hoping something will stick. I like to sip rum and laugh my ass off while I mark papers. The Family Compact Movement? Where'd you dream this up? And they managed to rewrite a century's worth of history to cover their crimes? Wow, they are good, better than those evil Freemasons.

Look up the Family Compact.

While many believe it disbanded around 1840, in fact it existed long after Confederation and into the early 1900s. Sir John A. McDonald was a founding member, a Victorian, and a lawless punk.

And obviously you aren't educated enough about history to teach others. Give yourself a failing grade.

Edited December 31, 2011 by charter.rights

[cybercoma]

That all true I think. But theres the basic question of why a "community" has to be funded at all. The people in that community can sell goods and services to each other, harvest natural resources, hunt, fish, mill lumber, and all kinds of other things. I get that we have responsibilities, but what bugs me is I dont see any real end game, and that hurts natives even more than it hurts us.

Whatever the plan is we need to get on with it.

Because this isn't the 1700s frontier. We have a particular standard of living that the government would like to maintain, have made the commitment to maintain, and they're failing miserably when it comes to conditions on reserves. Hell, you can make the same argument about the rest of Canada. Why does anything need to be funded at all? People could just sell goods and services to each other, harvest natural resources, hunt, fish, mill lumber and all kinds of other things, as you say. Why do we pay any taxes at all?

[cybercoma]

And it's funny that you say that here, but this in the other thread:

The various social programs we have may be excessive in some cases but they are far from "feel good" programs. They are there to maintain political stability, and every single country that evolved beyond living in MUD HUTS has used them to various different degrees.

[prairiechickin]

Look up the Family Compact.

While many believe it disbanded around 1840, in fact it existed long after Confederation and into the early 1900s. Sir John A. McDonald was a founding member, a Victorian, and a lawless punk.

And obviously you aren't educated enough about history to teach others. Give yourself a failing grade.

I know all about the Family Compact and its on the Top Five of Most Boring Topics in Canadian History which is why I skip by it in less than an hour. Your analysis is weak, but I give you five marks for the sentance, "Sir John A. Macdonald (this is the correct spelling, Sir J mever sold McChickins) was a founding member, a Victorian, and a lawless punk." That's Gold Jerry, Pure Gold! I write this stuff on index cards and use it in my lectures.

I have another paragraph from a desperate young man late in an exam who thought the solution to the Oka standoff was to give a membership to the golf course and a set of clubs to all the Indians so they would feel welcome on the graves of their ancestors. I can't make this stuff up so I rely on people like you.

[jbg]

You have to read the Supreme Court rulings that have defined the government's fiduciary responsibilities to get a clearer picture. The text of treaties is misleading and incomplete.

If the text of the treaties is "misleading and incomplete" what you're saying is that the rights of the FN's are whatever the most radical judge one can find says it is, and that cannot be retreated from?

[cybercoma]

I know all about the Family Compact and its on the Top Five of Most Boring Topics in Canadian History which is why I skip by it in less than an hour. Your analysis is weak, but I give you five marks for the sentance, "Sir John A. Macdonald (this is the correct spelling, Sir J mever sold McChickins) was a founding member, a Victorian, and a lawless punk." That's Gold Jerry, Pure Gold! I write this stuff on index cards and use it in my lectures.

I bet you slay them with your "Just keepin' it Riel" lecture.

[Guest Peeves]

I bet you slay them with your "Just keepin' it Riel" lecture.

Not to mention "Our home and Natives' land."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not to mention "Our home and Natives' land."

That was funny.

[charter.rights]

If the text of the treaties is "misleading and incomplete" what you're saying is that the rights of the FN's are whatever the most radical judge one can find says it is, and that cannot be retreated from?

Not at all.

R. v. Marshall 1999

. . when considering a treaty, a court must take into account the context in which the treaties were negotiated, concluded and committed to writing. The treaties, as written documents, recorded an agreement that had already been reached orally and they did not always record the full extent of the oral agreement....As a result, it is well settled that the words in the treaty must not be interpreted in their strict technical sense nor subjected to rigid modern rules of construction.

“Generous” rules of interpretation should not be confused with a vague sense of after-the-fact largesse....The bottom line is the Court’s obligation is to “choose from among the various possible interpretations of the common intention [at the time the treaty was made] the one which best reconciles” the Mi’kmaq interests and those of the British Crown...

[cybercoma]

Not to mention "Our home and Natives' land."

Yes!

[charter.rights]

I bet you slay them with your "Just keepin' it Riel" lecture.

His inmates are likely unimpressed.

[jbg]

Not at all.

R. v. Marshall 1999

I read the excerpts. They make horrible law. The "parol evidence" rule is clear that when negotiations are reduced to a writing, the writing controls. Only subsequent modifications can be oral.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I read the excerpts. They make horrible law. The "parol evidence" rule is clear that when negotiations are reduced to a writing, the writing controls. Only subsequent modifications can be oral.

Isn't CR saying its the other way around?

[jbg]

I read the excerpts. They make horrible law. The "parol evidence" rule is clear that when negotiations are reduced to a writing, the writing controls. Only subsequent modifications can be oral.

Isn't CR saying its the other way around?

Yes. And so did the SCOC. It's still horrible law from an English Common Law point of view.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes. And so did the SCOC. It's still horrible law from an English Common Law point of view.

Yeah, but it makes sense here because of several factors. Keep in mind the dummies that formed this great nation of mine had no trouble in accepting the Crown's bad debts, and the Crown's bad system of democracy. We even accepted foreign power and control of our military, just happy to have the status of a thrall. The Supreme Court rules in favour of appeasement instead of resolution, the actions of a cowardly government, in the name of political correctness. We cannot rewrite history, nor should we try. We inherited a mess, and have never grown the spine to do anything about it!

[jbg]

We cannot rewrite history, nor should we try. We inherited a mess, and have never grown the spine to do anything about it!

Hopefully that changed this past May 2. I am assuming the date was great for reasons other than being the 41st anniversary of my Bar Mitzvah at Westchester Reform Temple.

[charter.rights]

Hopefully that changed this past May 2. I am assuming the date was great for reasons other than being the 41st anniversary of my Bar Mitzvah at Westchester Reform Temple.

Nope. It won't change.

The Judiciary is one of the three divisions of government and cannot be over-ruled by the other two. While Parliament can attempt to change the law, it must still be in conformance with the Constitution, and where Aboriginal rights are concerned consistent the Honour of the Crown.

The reality is that the Royal Proclamation 1763 set out rules to deal with Indians, and those rules were violated in making treaties. In the course of common law that would invalidate the agreements if the concessions were fraudulently obtained and illegally conducted. However, the Supreme Court has salvaged the treaties by requiring that there must be a reconciliation between what benefits the Crown received and what benefits the Indians received. Again under common law principles unjust enrichment is not permitted under any agreement.

However, keep in mind that treaties do not fall under common law principles exclusively. Just as the Court has determined that Aboriginal rights retained under the treaties represents a sui generis title to land, treaty law must be consistent with Aboriginal law principles as well. That is why the Royal Proclamation 1763 gave the Indians the absolute and exclusive decision-making power for land surrenders. Many of the negotiators and agents of the Crown violated those rules and the Supreme Court clarified the required process in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada by setting out the rules for legitimate surrender. Those rules were an attempt to reconcile the laws of First Nations (the Chippewas) with those of the Crown.

It isn't horrible law as you imagine. It is a necessary recognition that Aboriginal rights are not to be trod upon by the Crown, or by treaties that in written form favoured Canada. It recognizes the unique and ubiquitous nature of Aboriginal law concerning the making of treaties, which they had been making for centuries before first arrival. Finally it acknowledges that the Crown has always recognized rights of Aboriginal people as a plenum dominium until they willingly offered them up. As Canada has evolved we have ignored those rights and attempted to eradicate Aboriginal people as distinct and separate and steal their land and resources, something the framers of early law foresaw, and used the Royal Proclamation 1763 as an instrument to protect.

Edited January 2, 2012 by charter.rights

[jbg]

So basically you're agreeing with me, that the SCOC's interpretation gives wide range to the imaginations of current band leaders and their counsel?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So basically you're agreeing with me, that the SCOC's interpretation gives wide range to the imaginations of current band leaders and their counsel?

I think CR will disagree with you. Under the system, both side are allowed to be stupid. What is worse is that the SCOC, cannot create law, only the government can though an Act of Parliament. The system sucks. There is only one viable solution and that is self government for First Nations peoples. That is the only way to make it work. Bands are really just small communities, and everyone will agree that folks ought to be able to do for themselves, no different on or off a reserve.

The problem as I see it stems from the concept of not being Canadian. without being a citizen of Canada as some would say that leaves no option but self government.

[jbg]

I think CR will disagree with you. Under the system, both side are allowed to be stupid. What is worse is that the SCOC, cannot create law, only the government can though an Act of Parliament. The system sucks. There is only one viable solution and that is self government for First Nations peoples. That is the only way to make it work. Bands are really just small communities, and everyone will agree that folks ought to be able to do for themselves, no different on or off a reserve.

But how can they be self-supporting, given that their subsidized populations far outstrips the game supply at a place such as, say, Attawapiskat?

[charter.rights]

So basically you're agreeing with me, that the SCOC's interpretation gives wide range to the imaginations of current band leaders and their counsel?

No. I disagree and so does the Supreme Court....

"“Generous” rules of interpretation should not be confused with a vague sense of after-the-fact largesse..."

Oral history like historical evidence is to be "tested" according to some very specific rules laid out by the Supreme Court. One band, one Chief cannot just put his oral evidence before the court and have it accepted without qualification. The tests not only include having oral opinions coming from multiple sources, but is the commonality between versions, plus the existence of a provable existing traditional practice often recorded in early British historical accounts that certifies as substantial evidence. Thus in the cited case, R. v. Marshall

"....the Court’s obligation is to “choose from among the various possible interpretations of the common intention [at the time the treaty was made] the one which best reconciles” the Mi’kmaq interests and those of the British Crown...

Edited January 2, 2012 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

But how can they be self-supporting, given that their subsidized populations far outstrips the game supply at a place such as, say, Attawapiskat?

As governments they would be entitled to royalties on resources and development on their traditional lands. However, don't hold your breath.

The federal government is trying to obtain self-government agreements which essentially place the First Nations within the legislative authorities of the provincial governments. First Nations see themselves as autonomous nations with status and legislative authority at least that of provinces, an in some cases (as in Six Nations) in the same capacity as the federal government. This dispute is often central to the failures of any land claims or resource revenue sharing negotiations.

The federal government runs by policy that is contrary to the rights of Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people will not give up rights they have preserved for thousands of years.

[prairiechickin]

As governments they would be entitled to royalties on resources and development on their traditional lands. However, don't hold your breath.

The federal government is trying to obtain self-government agreements which essentially place the First Nations within the legislative authorities of the provincial governments. First Nations see themselves as autonomous nations with status and legislative authority at least that of provinces, an in some cases (as in Six Nations) in the same capacity as the federal government. This dispute is often central to the failures of any land claims or resource revenue sharing negotiations.

The federal government runs by policy that is contrary to the rights of Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people will not give up rights they have preserved for thousands of years.

Here's where we disagree fundamentally and where Native people are setting themselves up for a world of disappointment. They started by using the term 'First Nations' back in the nineties -- one could legitimize its use in the sociological sense, but I knew it was just a matter of time until they ignored common sense and started to use it in its modern political sense. Let me be clear, Germany is a nation, Norway is a nation, New Zealand is a nation -- Garden River First Nation is not a nation. Its an Indian band, and all the convoluted logic in the world doesn't make it a real nation. Nations print their own currency, raise their own armies, deal with other nations via diplomatic missions, and tax their citizens to varying degrees, among a host of other things. Here's a really good test to see if you are a nation. Next time you leave Canada, look at your passport, what nation's name is on it? Does it say Kawakatoos First Nation? Does it say Six Nations? Does it say Mic'mah First Nation? No, it says Canada because Canada is a nation recognized by all the other nations in the world.

Whatever form Native self-government assumes in the next few decades, it will not equal the federal government or even a provincial one. Municipal maybe, but these grandiose ideas about being equals with the feds or the provinces is just more pie-in-the-sky dreaming. You wonder why negotiations over these matters take so long? Its because Indians have filled their heads with this nonsense and its tough to start negotiating with delusional people. I can see the federal government allowing Natives to control some aspects of their education and social services, but get that resource sharing / development royalties stuff right out of your head. First of all, those revenue streams belong to the provinces, so the feds couldn't negotiate them away if it wanted to. So if you want to negotiate in good faith, try reading some history and political science so you at least have a clue what your talking about. Natives want all the rights of nationhood, but as yet have assumed none of the responsibility.

[charter.rights]

Here's where we disagree fundamentally and where Native people are setting themselves up for a world of disappointment. They started by using the term 'First Nations' back in the nineties -- one could legitimize its use in the sociological sense, but I knew it was just a matter of time until they ignored common sense and started to use it in its modern political sense. Let me be clear, Germany is a nation, Norway is a nation, New Zealand is a nation -- Garden River First Nation is not a nation. Its an Indian band, and all the convoluted logic in the world doesn't make it a real nation. Nations print their own currency, raise their own armies, deal with other nations via diplomatic missions, and tax their citizens to varying degrees, among a host of other things. Here's a really good test to see if you are a nation. Next time you leave Canada, look at your passport, what nation's name is on it? Does it say Kawakatoos First Nation? Does it say Six Nations? Does it say Mic'mah First Nation? No, it says Canada because Canada is a nation recognized by all the other nations in the world.

Whatever form Native self-government assumes in the next few decades, it will not equal the federal government or even a provincial one. Municipal maybe, but these grandiose ideas about being equals with the feds or the provinces is just more pie-in-the-sky dreaming. You wonder why negotiations over these matters take so long? Its because Indians have filled their heads with this nonsense and its tough to start negotiating with delusional people. I can see the federal government allowing Natives to control some aspects of their education and social services, but get that resource sharing / development royalties stuff right out of your head. First of all, those revenue streams belong to the provinces, so the feds couldn't negotiate them away if it wanted to. So if you want to negotiate in good faith, try reading some history and political science so you at least have a clue what your talking about. Natives want all the rights of nationhood, but as yet have assumed none of the responsibility.

You might want to do more research, rather than relying upon your collection of prejudices to make statements...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

The Haudenosaunee Passport has been used to travel in about 30 countries all over the world, including the US and Britain which only rejected it last year because it did not contain the secure information required under the new Secure Passport requirements of Home land Security.

The Lakota Republic in the US issues its own silver backed currency. http://freelakotabank.com/currency.php

First Nations are sovereign nations and no where in history have they ever capitulated or applied for citizenship under Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled that First Nations are entitled to be self-governing since that was (and is) one of the guarantees under the Royal Proclamation 1763. The government of Canada has no say in what self-government means. However, I can assure you few First Nations will ever accept municipal status.

It is only a matter of time where their economic development provides all the capital they need to fight the attempts to keep them subservient to the government. In fact the big tobacco challenge in the west is the first major push in the last 50 years to assert federal status over provinces. As federally licensed manufacturers trading "nation to nation" (guaranteed under Supreme Court Mitchell v. MNR) Rainbow tobacco of Kahnawake has the capital to challenge the provinces by supplying western First Nations with tax free cigarettes for resale.

The Haudenosaunee are sovereign and last year the Queen officially recognized their continued sovereignty by presenting them with gifts commemorating 300 years of the Silver Covenant Chain treaty as friends and allies of the Crown. I also understand from my sources close to Harper that he got an "elbow in the ribs" and was told to play nice with Six Nations as they hold a unique and special relationship with the Crown. Shortly after that Harper made 3 announcements favouring First Nations in an attempt to appear like he was trying to be helpful.

So your opinion is about a useful as a doorknob that refuses to turn. You can't be further from reality.

[prairiechickin]

The Haudenosaunee Passport has been used to travel in about 30 countries all over the world, including the US and Britain which only rejected it last year because it did not contain the secure information required under the new Secure Passport requirements of Home land Security.

The Lakota Republic in the US issues its own silver backed currency. http://freelakotabank.com/currency.php

First Nations are sovereign nations and no where in history have they ever capitulated or applied for citizenship under Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled that First Nations are entitled to be self-governing since that was (and is) one of the guarantees under the Royal Proclamation 1763. The government of Canada has no say in what self-government means. However, I can assure you few First Nations will ever accept municipal status.

I've never heard of the Haudenossaunee, but I highly doubt their passport is recognized without its Canadian counterpart. As for the Lakota Republic, anybody can issue tokens, I buy them at football games to exchange for beer. Doesn't make them legal tender. As for the rest of your clap-trap regarding sovereignty and the Proclamation of 1763, when I hear it on the National, I'll believe it. Go read a real treaty. Oh wait, those are all null and void, aren't they?