First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[charter.rights]

See, here's where things go off the rails when Native peoples talk to the rest of Canada....

No. It is where lazy people allow ignorance instead of intelligence to form opinions.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that promises were made that never made it into the written texts of the treaties. They also determined that treaties were oral agreements that were later written down (and illegally edited) by the British negotiators. As such the purpose of providing education was to provide for an education and for medicines, to ensure that Natives would have access to the same kinds of protections as the settlers.

Just admit it. You are wrong and move on. The Supreme Court holds a lot more weight than an ignorant Sasks hick.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am just guessin' that things haven't seemed to have panned out to well for CR. If you believe him, the SCC has already sided with the same views as CR.

[charter.rights]

I am just guessin' that things haven't seemed to have panned out to well for CR. If you believe him, the SCC has already sided with the same views as CR.

The SCoC has 25 years of Aboriginal jurisprudence they are following. And not everything is available on the internet.

And just so you know. Things are going very well. I found out last Tuesday that they found another priest who was in charge of a residential school and had abused the children. The RCMP will be formally charging him at the beginning of January. Good news all around.

And unlike you, I research everything that I discuss so I know what I am talking about.

Edited December 27, 2011 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

I am just guessin' that things haven't seemed to have panned out to well for CR. If you believe him, the SCC has already sided with the same views as CR.

It just goes to show that even Supreme Court Justices can be blinded by political correctness as easily as anyone else!

I doubt if it was a unanimous decision. Surely some of the judges must have recognized that by crediting oral history as equal to that of written, they had handed the natives a blank cheque. The natives could make any claim they wanted. How could anyone dispute it? Where is the opportunity for any verification?

Apparently, native oral history is to be taken as gospel, with their honesty to be taken as an absolute!

This to me makes no sense at all. I would no more accept oral history as I would the word of a politician!

Whatever. It happened and up till now we've had to live with it. Still, if the issues ever became important enough another Supreme Court trial could be held. It's possible a new set of judges might reverse the decision. Surely these things are not cast in stone!

[charter.rights]

It just goes to show that even Supreme Court Justices can be blinded by political correctness as easily as anyone else!

I doubt if it was a unanimous decision. Surely some of the judges must have recognized that by crediting oral history as equal to that of written, they had handed the natives a blank cheque. The natives could make any claim they wanted. How could anyone dispute it? Where is the opportunity for any verification?

Apparently, native oral history is to be taken as gospel, with their honesty to be taken as an absolute!

This to me makes no sense at all. I would no more accept oral history as I would the word of a politician!

Whatever. It happened and up till now we've had to live with it. Still, if the issues ever became important enough another Supreme Court trial could be held. It's possible a new set of judges might reverse the decision. Surely these things are not cast in stone!

It isn't just ONE decision. It is over 25 years of decisions that have clarified the actual meaning of the treaties and what they actually contain.

The SCoC also set out a test to verify the oral history. It isn't just some game you kids like to play when you have CRAFT moment. It is very precise information verified through many sources including the British records of meetings and correspondence between the parties. The British were immaculate record keepers.

Edited December 27, 2011 by charter.rights

[jacee]

I am just guessin' that things haven't seemed to have panned out to well for CR. If you believe him, the SCC has already sided with the same views as CR.

Pretty much, ya, from what I've read.

I certainly don't see anyone here providing any evidence/links to dispute the Supreme Court case law.

[jbg]

It certainly appears that the Left is resorting to attacking the poster rather than what is posted. "paid Conservative attack crew"? Where do they get these bizarre ideas?

Well, when they get attacked, they "regroup" and counter-attack.

Edited December 27, 2011 by jbg

[charter.rights]

Well, when they get attacked, they "regroup" and counter-attack.

You mean as opposed to throwing out straw man and red herring fallacies like you do?

[charter.rights]

Pretty much, ya, from what I've read.

I certainly don't see anyone here providing any evidence/links to dispute the Supreme Court case law.

They can't dispute the Supreme Court of Canada. But they never let facts get in the way of their ignorance anyway.

[prairiechickin]

No. It is where lazy people allow ignorance instead of intelligence to form opinions.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that promises were made that never made it into the written texts of the treaties. .

Just admit it. You are wrong and move on. The Supreme Court holds a lot more weight than an ignorant Sasks hick.

This ignorant Saskatchewan hick (you forgot redneck) would like a date on these Supreme Court rulings.

[charter.rights]

This ignorant Saskatchewan hick (you forgot redneck) would like a date on these Supreme Court rulings.

Take your pick.

http://scc.lexum.org/scc-eliisa/search?language=EN&documentScope=judgment&documentScope=news&documentScope=bulletin&all=aboriginal

[charter.rights]

By the way... that is the Short List. There are many more cases that set precedent and clarify Aboriginal and Treaty rights not listed.

[jbg]

Perhaps you interpret the treaty too literally.

The principles of treaty interpretation have developed over decades of Supreme Court rulings (case law). For example, treaty rights are not 'frozen in time', but must be relevant in the modern context.

You realize that cuts both ways. If a treaty is impractically advantageous to "whitey" why then is abrogating that treat not proper. Is it a one-way ratchet in favor of the FN leaders?

[charter.rights]

You realize that cuts both ways. If a treaty is impractically advantageous to "whitey" why then is abrogating that treat not proper. Is it a one-way ratchet in favor of the FN leaders?

Because the Crown (including all its officers, governments, negotiators and agents) had a long standing obligation to protect Aboriginal people from the unscrupulous dealings of the British settlers (and Crown themselves). The Supreme Court holds the Honour of the Crown, and the protection of Aboriginal people as an underlying principle of all decision making.

The Silver Covenant Chain treaties and the Royal Proclamation 1763 were all about protecting Aboriginal people from those who would steal and cheat them for the land and resources. Without those treaties and the Proclamation Indians would have openly attacked any settlers on the frontier and halted the western expansion.

Edited December 27, 2011 by charter.rights

[jbg]

Without those treaties and the Proclamation Indians would have openly attacked any settlers on the frontier and halted the western expansion.

That approach worked real well south of the Border?

[jacee]

See, here's where things go off the rails when Native peoples talk to the rest of Canada, and why we can't agree. Natives do believe what you are saying here, and you've done a good job summarizing what some of my friends in Treaty Four keep telling me. Problem is, its simply not true. Go read Treaty Four -- its pretty specific in its language that this was a one-time deal and the government had no intention of renegotiating or upgrading, or modernizing any of its terms. Which doesn't mean the feds haven't put a lot more money into health and education, but that's only because it had to be done. But its not a treaty right.

In your opinion? Or can you cite evidence to back it up?

I don't think you are well informed about the modern legal interpretations of the treaties, and your opinion is irrelevant.

Here in Regina we proudly boast the only Native built university in North America -- First Nations University -- and it was built with a lot of extra money and effort from Treaty Four bands and all three levels of government. But when the feds and the province threatened to curtail funding because the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians were using it like a casino to provide jobs and expense accounts for families and friends, a great cry went up from Natives across the land that the government had no business sticking its nose into Indian affairs since the university was a treaty right. Now, can you see why this sticks in whitey's craw? What was a generous commitment far and above treaty obligations quickly became a 'right'. Somehow a single line in Treaty Four promising a school and a teacher on each reserve now had been redefined (in the Native mind) as whitey owes Natives a university, and all Natives a university education even when the Natives themselves ran the place into a sea of red ink, and chased away many of the real Native scholars (recruited from bands all over North America) in favor of their in-laws and cousins who may or may not have ever been to university.

Getting back to my original request. Can you supply any cases where Canada is not fulfilling its treaty obligations? And by that I mean the real literal treaty, not the imaginary ones Natives are so fond of dreaming about. And can you supply a link to where the Supreme Court has over-ridden a single clause in Treaty Four? Don't just tell me these things have happened, I've heard this a hundred times from my Native friends. Prove it, and prove to yourself that this has indeed really happened. As long as Indians keep spinning these fantasies about trust funds and broken treaties they are setting themselves up for a world of desappointment.

Postsecondary education ... a current issue and I'm not aware of the status of any relevant court challenges. Can you bring us up to date on that? Again, the status of the law on that is of more interest to me than your opinion.

[prairiechickin]

Take your pick.

http://scc.lexum.org/scc-eliisa/search?language=EN&documentScope=judgment&documentScope=news&documentScope=bulletin&all=aboriginal

I did, I went down twelve or so spaces and the claim wass denied. It was yet another feeble attempt by Indians to extract money from The Man.

[prairiechickin]

In your opinion? Or can you cite evidence to back it up?

I don't think you are well informed about the modern legal interpretations of the treaties, and your opinion is irrelevant.

Nope, I asked first, You don't get to smother my request with a larger one. You show me first where Canada has abrogated its duties regarding the treaties. I'm waiting.

[prairiechickin]

In your opinion? Or can you cite evidence to back it up?

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/treaty_4.html

[cybercoma]

Care to offer ANY specifics from "Attawapiskat's books" which indicates ANY of the qualified band members were refused or limited in their educational aspirations due to financial constraints? I seriously doubt there are any Natives anywhere in Canada who are qualified to pursue higher education who have had to limit their educational pursuits due to lack of financial support.

Attawapiskat doesn't even have a real school. Yet the vast majority of the money that actually is within the Band's control goes towards education. Since that's not a good enough example for you, there's no point in even having this discussion. Even the Conservatives, under Chuck Strahl, have admitted that they desperately need a new school, but they don't have the funding.

[cybercoma]

It just goes to show that even Supreme Court Justices can be blinded by political correctness as easily as anyone else!

9 sitting justices at any given time and over 25 years. From what I can tell, there have been roughly 24 different justices in that time period and all of them "blinded by political correctness"? You must be joking. Especially when you consider Mulroney and Harper appointed almost half of them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Attawapiskat doesn't even have a real school. Yet the vast majority of the money that actually is within the Band's control goes towards education. Since that's not a good enough example for you, there's no point in even having this discussion. Even the Conservatives, under Chuck Strahl, have admitted that they desperately need a new school, but they don't have the funding.

Answer the question, please....

[charter.rights]

I did, I went down twelve or so spaces and the claim wass denied. It was yet another feeble attempt by Indians to extract money from The Man.

You have to read the entire cases. There are some cases that are not successful, such as Mitchell v. MNR. However, while the court denied that Grand Chief Mitchell had a right to bring goods back for sale from the US (claiming there was no north south trade traditionally confirmed) they did recognize that there has long existed an east-west trade system that predates the Royal Proclamation 1763 and thus becomes an Aboriginal right protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Currently the Mohawks are in the process of challenging that right denied by the provinces by supplying cigarettes from federally licensed facilities owned and located on their reserve, to reserves in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. One decision builds on other decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So it is lazy of you to cherry pick a case and say, "oh well it was denied so it is of no importance". Wrong!. You have to read them all while reading the treaties or the laws they are challenging. You have to read the interpretations and clarifications issued by the Judges after the cases. And you have to understand the legal jurisprudence behind those decisions. Anything less is lazy and ignorant.

[jacee]

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/treaty_4.html

...he outlined the Queen’s promises of a “bounty and benevolence” which included reserves, agricultural provisions, schools, and annuities. Morris frequently mentioned concern about the well-being of children and the yet unborn; and the treaty, he promised, would last “as long as the sun shines and water flows.”

Clearly Treaty 4 was not a 'one time' deal, but an ongoing commitment and included federal funding for education and health care as well as annuities - annual payments to each member.

Verbal promises are contracts too, so treaty rights include what is writtne as well as discussion items (as above) updated to modern equivalents.

There are many documents available online that clarify treaty interpretation by the Supreme Court, but they are pdf files that I can't copy from or link to here. I suggest the Devlin Gailus link in this google search as a recent summary.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&gl=ca&biw=320&bih=397&q=principles+of+treaty+interpretation%2C+supreme+court+of+canada%2C+devlingailus&oq=principles+of+treaty+interpretation%2C+supreme+court+of+canada%2C+devlingailus&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=64470l75546l0l77477l14l14l0l0l0l0l1001l3502l3-2.4.7-1l7l0

[charter.rights]

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/treaty_4.html

Agricultural assistance, medical aid and other promises had been verbally made at earlier negotiations of the Numbered Treaties; however, these terms did not appear in the written text of Treaties 1 and 2. Records of the discussions proved that the Crown had indeed made promises beyond what the federal government initially planned...

From YOUR cite.

From the beginning the government was derogating the terms of the treaties, something that is a violation of Aboriginal rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Indian Act is an abrogation of rights. In 2010 the SCoC struck down the definition of "Indian" under the Act and directed AANDC to change the definition to one that complied with the Charter within one year. The new definition includes two more generations of people that can be considered "Indians" under the Act. However, the new definition still excludes hundreds of thousands of people whom are Indians according to their own First Nation definitions. Yet the government abrogates their rights.

Another court challenge on the new definition is under way.

Today education funding is less than 2/3 of the funding of mainstream education and in some cases the Auditor General found funding to be below 50%. The AG has also stated that given decades of underfunding of Aboriginal education, in order to restore equity it should be at least 150% of the mainstream funding. As well most reserves still do not have high schools even though the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that secondary schools were included in the treaties. That is derogation.

Today not all health care service or drugs that are funded through the provincial health care plans are covered by the AANDC Non-Insured Health Benefit plan which funds Aboriginal health services. The AG has also pointed out that in many cases it is also less than 2/3 the funding received by the provinces for mainstream health care services. That is derogation.

The government has never lived up to their fiduciary and moral duty to Aboriginal people. Lands claims is another area where the government abrogates their duty. Even though the Supreme Court has held that First Nations own outright all lands that have never been surrendered under treaty, the government continues to treat land like we have an absolute right to do whatever we please. Even though the SCoC has ruled that we must consult with First Nations BEFORE we develop any lands treaty or otherwise,. Yet we routinely ignore that duty and all kinds of developments take place without so much as notifying the First Nation of the intention. This is a legal wrong and the courts tend to frown upon such action by governments and often award large penalties to the First Nations when their rights have been ignored.

If you think we have paid too much to First Nations today you better pack your bags and leave to go somewhere else. There are so many valid claims that our great grandchildren will be paying 10 times what we have to pay today just to settle small claims. That is the nature of law. The longer we ignore it the greater the penalties will be when they finally make it to court.

I'll give you one last example.

Six Nations of the Grand had clear title to the Haldimand tract - 6 miles on either side of the Grand River in Ontario from its source to its mouth. It comprised some 950,000 acres. Today they own less than 48,000 acres.

From the beginning the government ignored their right and refused (as required by law) to evict settlers and squatters who migrated there. Had the government done the right thing there would not have been the mass populations and developments that are there today.

Six Nations is preparing a case for the tract will will be filed in court about 2018 to make claim for the Haldimand Tract. Using the Supreme Courts prescribed formulas for calculating the fair value of the lands, Six Nations has determined that the land is worth more than $14 trillion conservatively and as much as $20 trillion. Had the government complied with the law we would not be in the predicament about how this claim will be solved. Their claim is absolutely valid since there are no valid surrenders to all but a few acres in Brantford. The SCoC has ruled that unless there was a surrender, the First Nations hold a "plenum dominum" (absolute, before all others) title to the land.

That is ONE First Nation with ONE claim. Their claim for the rest of Southern Ontario hasn't yet been fully researched but early estimates put the fair value at over $78 trillion. Go figure.