prairiechickin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I stand corrected. The Chippewas test became the defacto legal test for determining whether or not a valid surrender has taken place. You could have said that in the first place instead of tossing in a single case and claiming it was a gold standard for all treaties in Canada. This is a ruling in Ontario, and is relevant to treaties and land surrenders there, and may be used in other provincial courts as a similar case. The thing you have to understand about treaties is that one size does not fit all. Starting in Newfoundland, which made no treaty with the dying Beothuk, treaties across Canada reflect the centuries of Native-European interaction and they change as you move west. Deals were struck across what is now southern Quebec and Ontario and in this region the Proclamation of 1763 has been deemed, rightly or wrongly, to carry some historic weight. While any French deals with the Indians were null and void after the collapse of Quebec, this Proclamation was intended to pacify the Indians by assuring them that any westward progress would be orderly under British rule. Its no accident that the American Revolution took place within 15 years of this Proclamation. Britain was trying to hem in its rebellious colonies to the south and stop them from spilling into the Ohio Valley (which was French territory) and starting expensive wars with the resident Indians. So King George The Tyrant was just trying to cover his colonial tax ass when he feebly tried to calm Native fears before the inevitable revolution in the southern colonies. So trying to argue that a pronouncement from some long-dead king a couple of hundred years ago (that was actually aimed at what is now the United States) has some legal weight in Saskatchewan is a bit of a logical stretch for me. Edited January 5, 2012 by prairiechickin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) In the Mitchell Map 1757 it identifies that Six Nations had been in possession of all of Southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River for over 100 years. See, its statements like this that tell me you have maybe 10% of the story right, the rest you just make up. Go read some real history books on Natives in Southern Ontario, then we'll chat. ps...tell me what happened to the Huron. Edited January 5, 2012 by prairiechickin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 So trying to argue that a pronouncement from some long-dead king a couple of hundred years ago (that was actually aimed at what is now the United States) has some legal weight in Saskatchewan is a bit of a logical stretch for me. The Royal Proclamation (which is what I assume you mean by "a pronouncement from some long-dead king") is part of the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 The Royal Proclamation (which is what I assume you mean by "a pronouncement from some long-dead king") is part of the constitution. I'll bet you a bottle of rum it isn't. Our painful run at a new Constitution ended in the early 80s, the entire Proclamation thing only emerged in the mid-90s with, of all things, eels. There was a Mig,Ma guy, I forget his name, but he was famous for being locked up for a murder he didn't commit (he was only trying to rob an old guy in a park when the old guy stabbed his accomplis, the story got tangled after that), but then he got caught fishing eels out of season when he got out of jail. Then some lawyer dug up the Proclamation of 1763 where it said Indians could fish, hunt, and generally sustain themselves off the land. Fair enough, but it aint in the Constitution because when that was written the Proclamation of 1763 was but a dusty chapter in history books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'll bet you a bottle of rum it isn't. I'll send you an address to ship that bottle to. S.25 of the Constitution Act 1982: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763..." Canada has never had a new constitution. All that took place in 1982 were some amendments to existing constitutional documents and the addition of the aforementioned Constitution Act 1982. As implied in the wording of S.25, the Royal Proclamation was a key law before the patriation of the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 You could have said that in the first place instead of tossing in a single case and claiming it was a gold standard for all treaties in Canada. This is a ruling in Ontario, and is relevant to treaties and land surrenders there, and may be used in other provincial courts as a similar case. The thing you have to understand about treaties is that one size does not fit all. Starting in Newfoundland, which made no treaty with the dying Beothuk, treaties across Canada reflect the centuries of Native-European interaction and they change as you move west. Deals were struck across what is now southern Quebec and Ontario and in this region the Proclamation of 1763 has been deemed, rightly or wrongly, to carry some historic weight. While any French deals with the Indians were null and void after the collapse of Quebec, this Proclamation was intended to pacify the Indians by assuring them that any westward progress would be orderly under British rule. Its no accident that the American Revolution took place within 15 years of this Proclamation. Britain was trying to hem in its rebellious colonies to the south and stop them from spilling into the Ohio Valley (which was French territory) and starting expensive wars with the resident Indians. So King George The Tyrant was just trying to cover his colonial tax ass when he feebly tried to calm Native fears before the inevitable revolution in the southern colonies. So trying to argue that a pronouncement from some long-dead king a couple of hundred years ago (that was actually aimed at what is now the United States) has some legal weight in Saskatchewan is a bit of a logical stretch for me. S.25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and ( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15) The Royal Proclamation 1763 is current law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'll bet you a bottle of rum it isn't. Our painful run at a new Constitution ended in the early 80s, the entire Proclamation thing only emerged in the mid-90s with, of all things, eels. There was a Mig,Ma guy, I forget his name, but he was famous for being locked up for a murder he didn't commit (he was only trying to rob an old guy in a park when the old guy stabbed his accomplis, the story got tangled after that), but then he got caught fishing eels out of season when he got out of jail. Then some lawyer dug up the Proclamation of 1763 where it said Indians could fish, hunt, and generally sustain themselves off the land. Fair enough, but it aint in the Constitution because when that was written the Proclamation of 1763 was but a dusty chapter in history books. You owe Bambino a bottle of rum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'll send you an address to ship that bottle to. S.25 of the Constitution Act 1982: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763..." Canada has never had a new constitution. All that took place in 1982 were some amendments to existing constitutional documents and the addition of the aforementioned Constitution Act 1982. As implied in the wording of S.25, the Royal Proclamation was a key law before the patriation of the constitution. Well I'llbe damned, you are right. What kind of rum do you drink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 S.25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Royal Proclamation 1763 is current law. In the area where it originally held sway. The British did not control the Yukon Territory in 1763 so why would a pronoucement from the King Of England have any impact there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 In the area where it originally held sway. The British did not control the Yukon Territory in 1763 so why would a pronoucement from the King Of England have any impact there? 1763 Canada was made up of Upper and Lower Canada thats it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'll send you an address to ship that bottle to.It's too bad our archaic laws make it illegal to mail alcohol between provinces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well I'llbe damned, you are right. What kind of rum do you drink? I don't, actually; not since I suffered through a really, really bad hangover the morning after drinking far too much of the stuff! It's too bad our archaic laws make it illegal to mail alcohol between provinces. Oh yeaaahh, that's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 In the area where it originally held sway. The British did not control the Yukon Territory in 1763 so why would a pronoucement from the King Of England have any impact there? The Royal Proclamation 1763 became the basis for all Aboriginal rights recognized by the Crown. Lord Denning,R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court, January 1982 “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.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 I don't, actually; not since I suffered through a really, really bad hangover the morning after drinking far too much of the stuff! Oh yeaaahh, that's right. Ok, no rum, but give me an address and I'll send you a bottle of something more interesting and culturally appropriate. I have a long-standing rule with my students that if they can prove me wrong, they get a special treat. It keeps me on my toes, and they'll work twice as hard to show me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 The Royal Proclamation 1763 became the basis for all Aboriginal rights recognized by the Crown. Lord Denning,R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court, January 1982 Good for Lord Denning and his lofty historical aspirations. Now explain to me why some ruling in a Brtish Court in 1982 should have any impact in Canada. We are a sovereign nation, if Britain wants to pay reparations for some alleged historic misdeeds, they can fill their boots, but I don't see how that has any legal standing in Canada. One of the reasons I was shocked to see the Proclamation of 1763 mentioned in the Constitution of 1982 was its implications for Quebec. Most of the Proclamation in the northern colonies was aimed at the French, not the Natives. Under the Proclamation the newly-conquered French subjects were to be anglicized to the point that the Catholic church was to be incorporated into the Anglican church. All of this was abandoned following the Quebec Act of 1774, but by your logic, the Proclamation should hold sway and all Qubecois should be forced to speak English. That's not going to happen, which is why I was surprised that anyone would dare breathe this antiquated document into a Canadian-made constitution. But you see why I can't imagine anyone would hold this ill-thought-out document as having any legal substance in Canada? It was a product of its time, hastily constructed to deal with the immdiate problems of subjugating newly conquered French territories while trying to hem in the rebellious colonies to the south. The Indians were an afterthought in all of this, and I can't see how any judge in their right mind could construe all this to interpret the Proclamation to be the Magna Carta of British-Native relations, and I sure don't see how any of this applies to modern Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 We are a sovereign nation, if Britain wants to pay reparations for some alleged historic misdeeds, they can fill their boots, but I don't see how that has any legal standing in Canada.We are a sovereign nation so we can do whatever we want with the consititution provided we follow the amending formula. However, whether we like it or not, some form of aboriginal rights are baked into the existing consitution and changing it would require a really nasty battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Good for Lord Denning and his lofty historical aspirations. Now explain to me why some ruling in a Brtish Court in 1982 should have any impact in Canada. This case was a challenge by the "Indian Association of Alberta" on the validity of repatriating the Constitution without consultation with Native people. It was properly addressed to the British High Court since they were the ones handing over the entire Constitution to Canada, and amending it to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The framers had conveniently left out the bulk of Aboriginal and treaty rights from the Charter and as I understand s35 was hastily added to soften the opposition. While this appeal was not successful because the High Court agreed that the Dominion of Canada has long before been given authority to deal with Indians, the case did confirm some very basic tenets of the Royal Proclamation 1763, confirmed by a number of references to Canadian Supreme Court cases. The case is useful in pointing out that when the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made, the British Crown and the Canada Crown were indivisible and any deal made with British Crown was automatically transferred as a responsibility to the Canadian Crown. What is important about the excerpt that you erroneously responded to by red herring fallacies, is that both courts concur about the same thing - The Royal Proclamation has long been recognized as a Magna Carta of Aboriginal rights. By prescription, the Charter includes those inalienable rights. Edited January 7, 2012 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 We are a sovereign nation, if Britain wants to pay reparations for some alleged historic misdeeds, they can fill their boots, but I don't see how that has any legal standing in Canada.Because it wasn't the "misdeeds" of Britain. If you want to call them misdeeds, then they are the misdeeds of Canada's monarchy, which we still have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 The case is useful in pointing out that when the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made, the British Crown and the Canada Crown were indivisible and any deal made with British Crown was automatically transferred as a responsibility to the Canadian Crown. So the Canada Crown was indivisible from the British Crown, a 104 years before Canada actually existed, eh? This is wonderful evidence, and I'd like to take this to Judge Judy. She'd yell in your face that you can't sue a country 100 years before it existed, and you'd look sad and remorseful, then sputter out some feeble excuses at the end of the show about how Canada did you wrong, then the show would be over and you'd look stupid. I'd love to run the Proclamation of 1763 through Judge Judy. Let's see what she thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 So the Canada Crown was indivisible from the British Crown, a 104 years before Canada actually existed, eh? This is wonderful evidence, and I'd like to take this to Judge Judy. She'd yell in your face that you can't sue a country 100 years before it existed, and you'd look sad and remorseful, then sputter out some feeble excuses at the end of the show about how Canada did you wrong, then the show would be over and you'd look stupid. I'd love to run the Proclamation of 1763 through Judge Judy. Let's see what she thinks. Do you really act so childish when a student challenges you? The Crowns were indivisible up until 1982. After that the Canadian Crown assumed the responsibilities of the Whole Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 Do you really act so childish when a student challenges you? The Crowns were indivisible up until 1982. After that the Canadian Crown assumed the responsibilities of the Whole Crown. Yes, and they love it, I throw cookies and Loonies at them when they get it right, I throw wickedly accurate chalk at their heads when they're wrong. They learn fast in my class. And Canada was free of all British ties in the 1930s when we severed our diplomatic missions. Canada has been its own nation since 1927. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 One of the reasons I was shocked to see the Proclamation of 1763 mentioned in the Constitution of 1982 was its implications for Quebec... Under the Proclamation the newly-conquered French subjects were to be anglicized to the point that the Catholic church was to be incorporated into the Anglican church. All of this was abandoned following the Quebec Act of 1774, but by your logic, the Proclamation should hold sway and all Qubecois should be forced to speak English... I'm not sure where you're getting this from; the Royal Proclamation of 1763 makes no mention of either religion or any official language, to be forced on anyone or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 Canada was free of all British ties in the 1930s when we severed our diplomatic missions. The formerly singularly British Crown over its empire was divided into multiple crowns with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. However, the British Crown specifically did retain residual sovereignty over Canada by virtue of the fact that certain amendments to the Canadian constitution still required the assent of the Queen in her British parliament (only with Canadian approval) in order to become law. The patriation of the constitution (with the added amending formula) cut that last link and the Canadian and British Crowns are now entirely separate except for the fact the same individual "wears" both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 I'm not sure where you're getting this from; the Royal Proclamation of 1763 makes no mention of either religion or any official language, to be forced on anyone or otherwise. J.L. Findlaay/D.N.Sprague, Structure of Canadian History, Third Edition, pp, 70-72. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 J.L. Findlaay/D.N.Sprague, Structure of Canadian History, Third Edition, pp, 70-72. Oookay... I read the Royal Proclamation itself and, as I said, there's no mention of language or religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.