PAPACHASE "First Nations" is not a real band!

[betsy]

The group that blocks the busiest highway is not a real aboriginal band! In the late 1880's their ancestors signed away their reserves for money. This "band" does not want the return of its land. It wants 2.5 billion in compensation for it!

Excerpt from a long article....

Roughly, the old reserve ran from 51st Avenue in the north to Ellerslie Road on the south, and from 122nd Street in the west to 34th Street in the east - a large (and valuable) chunk of the city. It includes Southgate Mall, Mill Woods Town Centre and South Edmonton Common, the newest leg of Anthony Henday Drive and four high schools, Harry Ainlay, Louis St. Laurent, Holy Trinity and J. Percy Page.

Roughly 175,000 Edmontonians today live on what was once Papaschase land. But the operative word is "was."

However, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the current group of aboriginals who claim to be descendants of Chief Papaschase could not file a land claim. The justices were unanimous in their decision.

The Papaschase complaint may point to the biggest problem with Idle No More.

Since its inception last fall, the movement has degenerated into a bitter stew of gripes about injuries both real and imagined. It has become a hodgepodge of hysterical and conspiratorial claims, such as the mistaken belief that the recent federal budget bill makes it easier for bands to sell off their lands permanently. It has become a patchwork quilt representing any and every complaint ever harboured by a single aboriginal or band.

Idle is too ill-defined and too splintered to ever be satisfied.

Perhaps that is why so many non-aboriginal Canadians have proclaimed themselves fed-up with Idle in particular and aboriginal complaints in general.

This week 60% of Canadians told pollsters Ipsos-Reid that "most of the problems of native people are brought on by themselves." Similarly, two-thirds said there was already enough money going from Ottawa to the reserves. A further 81% said no more money should go until audits and controls could be put in place to ensure an end to chronic waste of tax dollars.

http://www.sunnewsne...117-075439.html

This "Idle No More" is no more than a blatant attempt at extortion!

Edited January 18, 2013 by betsy

[Bryan]

This "Idle No More" is no more than a blatant attempt at extortion!

That was evident from the outset.

[kimmy]

Roughly, the old reserve ran from 51st Avenue in the north to Ellerslie Road on the south, and from 122nd Street in the west to 34th Street in the east - a large (and valuable) chunk of the city.

Heyyy! I am a native of that area reserve! Hopefully this will entitle me to tax and hunting benefits. Must investigate further.

-k

[Accountability Now]

I too live in the discussed area so I have taken a little more interest that normal. These guys are really giving the other reserves a bad name! They were given a reserve. They sold the reserve. The band moves to other reserves and official shuts down the band in 1909. In 1997 they revive the band hoping to cash in on some white man guilt.

They brought their case to the Alberta Court (Queens Bench) and were turned down. They appealled to the Supreme Court in 2008 and were unanimously struck down. But they are still fighting this cause.

This is embarrassing. There is no other word for it.

[betsy]

I too live in the discussed area so I have taken a little more interest that normal. These guys are really giving the other reserves a bad name! They were given a reserve. They sold the reserve. The band moves to other reserves and official shuts down the band in 1909. In 1997 they revive the band hoping to cash in on some white man guilt.

They brought their case to the Alberta Court (Queens Bench) and were turned down. They appealled to the Supreme Court in 2008 and were unanimously struck down. But they are still fighting this cause.

This is embarrassing. There is no other word for it.

I would not be so scathing if all they do is simply joining the protest - but lo, they're the ones blocking the busiest highway!

[Sleipnir]

I would not be so scathing if all they do is simply joining the protest - but lo, they're the ones blocking the busiest highway!

And the protesters are wondering why they're being perceived in an increasingly negative light.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Sleipnir

[westguy]

typical

[westguy]

can anyone explain why we 'owe" the natives a living? They receive many financial benefits other races do not. I recognize that many posters on this site express symapthy for them and assert that we have treated them badly. Although I may agree that their land was taken a hundred or more years ago but that has happened throughout history and without the consequential "white man's guilt" that we seem to have. How long will it go on?? I applaud the few native bands that have succeeded and created successful businesses but they are the exception.

I disagree with the pretense that natives are honorable or dishonorable and point to their squandering of benefits they receive from the taxpayer. ( benefits not afforded to the rest of us based solely on race) A small Manitoba newspaper called the natives lazy and corrupt. Given their poor accounting and use of funds given to them, I must agree.

[Accountability Now]

can anyone explain why we 'owe" the natives a living? They receive many financial benefits other races do not. I recognize that many posters on this site express symapthy for them and assert that we have treated them badly. Although I may agree that their land was taken a hundred or more years ago but that has happened throughout history and without the consequential "white man's guilt" that we seem to have. How long will it go on??

Most land was not taken...it was negotiated by treaty. The treaties clearly state they give up land for money which was $5 per head per year. 30-40 years ago (maybe sooner) they were still giving out $5 per head....I know this from an RCMP officer who was there.

In this time we introduced lawyers and lobbyists who administer the racist white guilt to sway what the natives are actually owed.

Regardless of what side you take on this you have to recognize that these native groups could of negotiated treaties with the British or been wiped out by the Americans. It was after the war of 1812 that the natives started to realize this and started the process. Now we are being punished because we were civil and tried to make a deal to see both groups co-exist. Wow...talk about your all time backfires!

[Smallc]

They still give out the $5.

[Accountability Now]

They still give out the $5.

And a whole bunch more.

[Smallc]

And a whole bunch more.

Yes, the treaties and the royal proclamation were written far too broadly, so the courts have given everything and the kitchen sink.

[westguy]

yes I think we have paid enough for our collective "guilt"

[Accountability Now]

The treaties were written broadly for today's standards but not for the time they were written. Today's lawyers and lobbyists have had a field day with this because they can stretch the objectivity in fear of racism.

[Wilber]

I lived in Mill Woods for five years. Does that count?

[blueblood]

The group that blocks the busiest highway is not a real aboriginal band! In the late 1880's their ancestors signed away their reserves for money. This "band" does not want the return of its land. It wants 2.5 billion in compensation for it!

Excerpt from a long article....

http://www.sunnewsne...117-075439.html

This "Idle No More" is no more than a blatant attempt at extortion!

And intimidation, the criminal code clearly states that blocking a highway is a no-no

423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

( intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

© persistently follows that person;

(d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;

(e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;

(f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(g) blocks or obstructs a highway.

Exception

(2) A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.

And where does some precedent from laying this charge in similar circumstances lie, well with the blood tribe out of Alberta

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2011/09/blood-nation-women-arrested-during-blockade-fracking

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/12/23/peaceful-protestors-charged-with-intimidation/

Ouch!

[Accountability Now]

The police obviously aren't scared to take down three women!

[Smallc]

The police have a job to uphold the law. If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't have signed on.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Smallc

[westguy]

they will never apply the law against aboriginals. they are scared of being called "racists"

[Accountability Now]

We should get a group of visible minorities comprised of 2nd Nations Canadians and have them blockade the reserves. The police wouldn't remove them because that would be racist too. Hmmmm....

[shortlived]

I think the issue the court has ignored is the fact that natives weren't allowed to sell their land. The sale had to go through the equivalent of Indian Affairs. The issue is clearly that it is Edmonton and not some rural landscape. It wasn't a legal transfer from Canada's perspective because the sale did not legally occur. This is much the same with the Six Nations Brant sale. I know from this sale of reserve land wasn't possible because it is federal land as far as Canada is concerned, held by the crown for the use of the natives.

The problem is native title isn't able to be extinguished by sale.

Now the natives selling land use rights is another issue completely.

In 1880 the entire area was probably under Rupert's land title transfered to the Federal government.

it was crown title by Canadian law.

In terms of land sale, there is a difference between title and deed. Title denotes jurisidiction and control while land use sale is a deed which can be revoked by the administrator of the title.

It was likely a duress sale brought on by alchohol, and the person who signed probably wasn't even sober.

http://www.papaschase.ca/history.html

Yeah starve the land out of them, that is how Canada shold be remembered...

Sounds more like torture than a land transaction.

Doesn't sound like they sold their land or title at all

"From 1890 to 1930, the Govt. of Canada sold all of IR 136 lands to third parties"

This sounds like the govt of Canada sold their land not the Papachase.

I think it is fair to say the Papachase had their land expropriated by the Govt. of Canada and sold to white setlers because Ottawa was extremely rascist at the time.

Edited February 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Rocky Road]

http://therealaboriginalcanadianfoodguide.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/the-colonial-problem-part-one/

found this blog. Have a look.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Rocky Road

[jbg]

This "Idle No More" is no more than a blatant attempt at extortion!

That was evident from the outset.

You're kidding me.

Of course they want compensation based on current, improved use. I think that a settlement, if any, should be based upon the value of isolated, desolate boreal forest.

[Sleipnir]

And intimidation, the criminal code clearly states that blocking a highway is a no-no

423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

( intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

(e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;

(g) blocks or obstructs a highway.

And the cops are saying they don't know how to deal with these protesters? Sheesh.....talk about being useless with a badge.

[Accountability Now]

I think the issue the court has ignored is the fact that natives weren't allowed to sell their land.

I don't know much about the actual court case but in light of numerous cares where the Supreme Court has been very favorable to native claims, it seems odd that the Supreme Court was unanimous on this decision. They must feel fairly confident this was the right decision?