White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[Smallc]

The constitution is supreme law of the land. Aboriginal rights cannot exist in a vacuum

[dre]

The constitution is supreme law of the land. Aboriginal rights cannot exist in a vacuum

Iv explained this to you already. Treaty rights dont come from the constitution they are merely affirmed there. Treaty rights come from... treaties.

Regardless of any constitutional admendment the government would have to bring a case to court and provide a compelling legal argument why the treaties should be dissolved. And like I said this would be an extremely stupid thing to do because we got way more rights from those treaties than natives did.

[Smallc]

So you don't understand the Constitution and how the treaties are part of said Constitution. That's fine, but it's wrong. The combined power of the legislative bodies in Canada is supreme over even the Crown. The courts have no say in the matter.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Smallc

[Smallc]

As an aside aboriginal rights don't come drone treaties, but the Royal Proclamation 1763.

[dre]

As an aside aboriginal rights don't come drone treaties, but the Royal Proclamation 1763.

Native treaty rights come from treatys, most of which were signed after 1763. The British signed treaties with first nations that would enable them to use land for agriculture, resource extraction, etc in exchange for payments, reserves, hunting and fishing rights etc. Those treaties were being signed well beyond confederation right up until the 1900's.

The Upper Canada treaty for example gave us the legal right to most of Ontario, and the Vancouver Island Treaty gave us the legal right to BC. Without these treaties Natives would have the legal standing to take ALL of this land back in the courts.

Under these treaties, the First Nations surrendered interests in lands in areas of what are now Ontario and British Columbia. They surrendered their interest in lands in exchange for certain other benefits that could include reserves, annual payments or other types of payment and certain rights to hunt and fish.

So some treaties predate the Proclamation, some were negotiated between Proclamation and Confederation, and some of them are post confederation. Some of them are still being negotiated today.

[dre]

And like I said... trying to undo these treaties would be a GIGANTIC mistake for us. We made out like Bandits...we aquired vast vast vast tracts of land in exchange for table scraps. Its extremely luck for us that these treaties are in place.

[jacee]

So you don't understand the Constitution and how the treaties are part of said Constitution. That's fine, but it's wrong. The combined power of the legislative bodies in Canada is supreme over even the Crown. The courts have no say in the matter.

That's ridiculous.

.

[dre]

So you don't understand the Constitution and how the treaties are part of said Constitution. That's fine, but it's wrong. The combined power of the legislative bodies in Canada is supreme over even the Crown. The courts have no say in the matter.

Again I already explained this to you. The treaties are NOT part of the constitution they are simply affirmed there. They were legally binding before the constitution even existed.

The combined power of the legislative bodies in Canada is supreme over even the Crown. The courts have no say in the matter.

This is simply not true, and suggests that you might need to attend a basic civics course. The "combined power of the legislative bodies" is routinely overruled by the courts. It happens all the time.

[jacee]

And like I said... trying to undo these treaties would be a GIGANTIC mistake for us. We made out like Bandits...we aquired vast vast vast tracts of land in exchange for table scraps. Its extremely luck for us that these treaties are in place.

Well said, dre.

.

[Smallc]

Native treaty rights come from treatys, most of which were signed after 1763. The British signed treaties with first nations that would enable them to use land for agriculture, resource extraction, etc in exchange for payments, reserves, hunting and fishing rights etc. Those treaties were being signed well beyond confederation right up until the 1900's.

The Upper Canada treaty for example gave us the legal right to most of Ontario, and the Vancouver Island Treaty gave us the legal right to BC. Without these treaties Natives would have the legal standing to take ALL of this land back in the courts.

So some treaties predate the Proclamation, some were negotiated between Proclamation and Confederation, and some of them are post confederation. Some of them are still being negotiated today.

All of the treaties are Constitutional documents. The Proclamation is a Constitutional documents. That's where they get their inherent strength from. The proclamation is the reason for the necessity of the treaties that are originally signed.

[Smallc]

And like I said... trying to undo these treaties would be a GIGANTIC mistake for us. We made out like Bandits...we aquired vast vast vast tracts of land in exchange for table scraps. Its extremely luck for us that these treaties are in place.

You do understand that as Canada exists, and a rewrite to end aboriginal special status and treaty would not make it so it didn't. Canada has the legal ability to end the treaties through constitutional legislation.

[Smallc]

This is simply not true, and suggests that you might need to attend a basic civics course. The "combined power of the legislative bodies" is routinely overruled by the courts. It happens all the time.

You don't seem to understand the well laid out Constitutional amending formulae. You wouldn't be a Harper advisor, would you?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Smallc

[Smallc]

That's ridiculous.

.

Well laid out response.

[jacee]

You do understand that as Canada exists, and a rewrite to end aboriginal special status and treaty would not make it so it didn't. Canada has the legal ability to end the treaties through constitutional legislation.

Treaties can only be changed by agreement of both parties.

You are flailing small c, because you are simply wrong. Let it go.

.

[Smallc]

Treaties can only be changed by agreement of both parties.

You are flailing small c, because you are simply wrong. Let it go.

.

There is only one party now. That's kind of the point. The Royal Proclamation 1763 stated quite clearly that the use of all land had to be negotiated with the aboriginal people that lived there but that those people were under the Crown. The British took the sovereignty of North American aboriginals. No surrender was required.

[jacee]

There is only one party now. That's kind of the point. The Royal Proclamation 1763 stated quite clearly that the use of all land had to be negotiated with the aboriginal people that lived there but that those people were under the Crown. The British took the sovereignty of North American aboriginals. No surrender was required.

Not true.

[Smallc]

Show me then.

[jacee]

Show me then.

'Under the protection of the Crown', but not 'subjects' of the Crown.

It's your burden of proof for your claim.

All relevant Canadian law proves you wrong.

[Remiel]

I think what is going on here is that some are arguing the "law" while some are arguing the "norms" . The source of Smallc's fervour (and my own, when I reveal it) I think is a sense that normatively what indigenous nations argue is completely bonkers: that a tiny minority has some kind of moral right to everything, and the rest of us are just supposed to be thralls of their entitlements. Which is impossible: everything in the case of Canada is a far greater portion of the Earth than even all Canadians together have a moral right to. We have facts on the ground that mean that Canada is the power in these lands, and when indigenous bands try to influence us away from that based on their own sense of moral superiority it butts up against the fact that they do not actually have much of a moral foot to stand on in terms of how much land they have the exclusive right to. The relationship of legalism to normativity though is a murky one, but not exactly a tenuous one. What we have here in essence is a question of whether the direct or indirect morality leads to the superior outcome for everyone. Me, I am not really keen on treating indigenous nations as some kind of aristocracy. That does not mean that the way they are treated by the state has to be exactly the same, or that we should not adhere to the treaties at all. But considering that band interpretations of what the treaties that conflict with what the Government has always maintained (and which the legal traditions their form finds its source in would assume, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that where treaties imply something morally appalling about the status of ordinary Canadians that that must be taken into consideration as well. Otherwise, given what I said before about power and facts on the ground, you are really just asking Canadians to be suckers.

[jacee]

But considering that band interpretations of what the treaties that conflict with what the Government has always maintained (and which the legal traditions their form finds its source in would assume, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that where treaties imply something morally appalling about the status of ordinary Canadians that that must be taken into consideration as well.

What does this mean?

.

[Smallc]

'Under the protection of the Crown', but not 'subjects' of the Crown.

It's your burden of proof for your claim.

All relevant Canadian law proves you wrong.

Nothing in Canadian law says that aboriginal people are not subjects of the Crown - nothing.

[jacee]

Nothing in Canadian law says that aboriginal people are not subjects of the Crown - nothing.

Where does it say they are?

.

[Smallc]

I'll again direct you to the Royal Proclamation and history in general

[Remiel]

What does this mean?

.

The way I have heard it said is that the courts have given leeway before to the notion that FN did not think they were giving away what they did from a straightforward reading (to us) of the treaties. Almost like what were going on is a reinterpretation of the meaning of the terms used.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing in Canadian law says that aboriginal people are not subjects of the Crown - nothing.

Perhaps, but Canada's racist and discriminatory Indian Act as written and executed is in direct violation of negotiated treaties and the recognized, inherent right of self government. The British (and later Canada + Rupert's Land) created a very uncertain foundation on which to lay a claim of sovereignty over specific native lands and Crown subjects. For instance, the now generally accepted failure of forced assimilation and "membership" protocols defined an inherent, separate aboriginal status. Accords to reconcile these issues constitutionally failed to close the gap for these very specific and other unrelated issues.