Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

[Smallc]

No, but we were discussing treaties.

Where there are no treaties ... well ... the land is still theirs, isn't it.

.

Not quite. Where there are treaties, a surrender has taken place no matter what you claim. Where there is not, proper surender has not taken place, but the land is still under the sovereignty of the Crown, as established in 1763.

[jacee]

Not quite. Where there are treaties, a surrender has taken place no matter what you claim. Where there is not, proper surender has not taken place, but the land is still under the sovereignty of the Crown, as established in 1763.

Land surrenders mean nothing about sovereignty of people's. You are confusing yourself.

Sovereignty of Indigenous Nations was never surrendered. How that is resolved 'within the state' of Canada remains to be seen. Mostly governments and courts try not to mention it.

You might be interested in these relevant sections of the

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right

they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social

and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the

right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local

affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct

political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right

to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural

life of the State.

Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

And you may recall this:

The motion states: "That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada."

.

[Smallc]

UN declarations carry far less weight than Canadian law. 1763 and the treaties have language that makes clear that you're wrong. The Crown has dominion over all.

As to that motion, it has nothing to do with your assertion. The Québécois don't have sovereignty.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Smallc

[eyeball]

What? Are you five years old?

Well, I don't see much point going any farther down this road of you insist on being such a duck about it, do you?

Did I say duck? Lol! You gotta love auto-correct.

Edited February 19, 2015 by eyeball

[jacee]

UN declarations carry far less weight than Canadian law. 1763 and the treaties have language that makes clear that you're wrong.

No they don't.

As to that motion, it has nothing to do with your assertion. The Québécois don't have sovereignty.

A nation of people within Canada.

A precedent.

No need to be so adversarial about it. We can be a nation of nations. No problem.

.

[Smallc]

A nation of people within Canada.

A precedent.

No need to be so adversarial about it. We can be a nation of nations. No problem.

.

That has nothing to do with sovereignty. You're moving the goal post and you have no evidence for even your new claims.

[jacee]

It also states in every treaty that aboriginal people are her Majesties Indians.

No it doesn't

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Well, I don't see much point going any farther down this road of you insist on being such a duck about it, do you?

Did I say duck? Lol! You gotta love auto-correct.

Another mature comment.

Don't worry. I'd walk away too if I couldn't comprehend the argument.

Have fun on Planet Earthling! Don't forget your daily dose of pixies!

[Smallc]

No it doesn't

.

Actually, it even says it in the Royal proclamation. Sovereignty was taken long ago.

[Accountability Now]

Actually, it even says it in the Royal proclamation. Sovereignty was taken long ago.

I agree that sovereignty is taken however the proclamation also states the following:

"We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements."

I don't think the answer for non-treaty land can be found in the RP

[Smallc]

I didn't claim it was all ceded. The Crown though, claimed dominion over all of it. Any aboriginal "sovereignty" that exists is within the context of the Canadian Crown.

[jacee]

"It also states in every treaty that aboriginal people are her Majesties Indians."

Actually, it even says it in the Royal proclamation.

No it doesn't.

that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection,

Sovereignty was taken long ago.

No it wasn't.

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

I didn't claim it was all ceded. The Crown though, claimed dominion over all of it. Any aboriginal "sovereignty" that exists is within the context of the Canadian Crown.

Agreed.

.

[Accountability Now]

I didn't claim it was all ceded. The Crown though, claimed dominion over all of it. Any aboriginal "sovereignty" that exists is within the context of the Canadian Crown.

Yes....you are right

"And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."

[overthere]

No, but we were discussing treaties.

Where there are no treaties ... well ... the land is still theirs, isn't it.

.

Who do you mean by 'theirs'?

The most recent aboriginal occupiers? Or those that they displaced? Or those that have occupied the land for a couple hundred years?

[jacee]

Who do you mean by 'theirs'?

The most recent aboriginal occupiers? Or those that they displaced? Or those that have occupied the land for a couple hundred years?

Legally, at 'contact'.

Don't worry. Feds have mapped traditional territories, shared hunting grounds, etc.

.

[overthere]

Legally, at 'contact'.

Don't worry. Feds have mapped traditional territories, shared hunting grounds, etc.

.

I'm sure they have. I'm equally sure that First Nations will fight the Feds and each other like wolverines over every square inch on every map.

It's only human.

What about displaced Clovis descendants? Don';t they get a share?

[jacee]

I'm sure they have. I'm equally sure that First Nations will fight the Feds and each other like wolverines over every square inch on every map.

It's only human.

What about displaced Clovis descendants? Don';t they get a share?

Do you not grasp "at contact"?

.

[overthere]

Do you not grasp "at contact"?

.

Oh, I thought you meant when 'at contact', when the later arrivals took the land from Clovis. You must have meant when white people arrived and did the same to the then current aboriginal groups.

That contact.

[jacee]

Oh, I thought you meant when 'at contact', when the later arrivals took the land from Clovis. You must have meant when white people arrived and did the same to the then current aboriginal groups.

That contact.

That's the legal parameter used, yes.

[Smallc]

That's the legal parameter used, yes.

Strange cutoff, don't you think?

[jacee]

Strange cutoff, don't you think?

No.

[Smallc]

No.

How so?

[jacee]

How so?

Why not?

[Smallc]

Why not?

It seems rather arbitrary, that's all. Of course it's not really arbitrary, because people are just people. That's why the entire thing is so ridiculous.