Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[jdobbin]

Looks like I was too quick to reply. Saga has been discovered.

[jdobbin]

Sorry ... I must have missed that question earlier! It has gotten quite complicated as I have to get a new id every time!!

The Six Nations 'elected' Band Council is the government of Six Nations that is recognized by the Canadian government, and administers the Indian Act. However, it is not recognized by the majority of Six Nations people. This is true all aross the country, to a greater or lesser extent: The Band Councils were imposed on them (at gunpoint, at Six Nations) in 1924, but only about 3% of indigenous people across the country vote in the elections because that is their way of protesting the imposed government. They support their traditional councils instead.

The elected Band Councils tend to settle their land claims for money, but more and more of the traditional people are objecting to this as they want the land back. Thus, the traditional Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council started the reclamation in Caledonia (Feb 28) over the objections of the elected council. However, on April 16, the elected council voted narrowly to give authority for negotiating land claims to the traditional Haudenosaunee Council and that is who is in negotiations. After the OPP raid, ALL of the Six Nations people arrived at the reclamation site to support them, with only a few elected council members still refusing to support them.

Thus, any changes occurring in leadership of the elected Band Council will likely reflect a move to traditional representation, and a break with the past. The people are united. A few elected Band Council members are not... they have jobs to lose.

............

It is getting quite complicated replying as I have to get a new id each time. I have not received any response to my request for an explanation for my banning. I will soon have to take it to another level and start sharing that information about mapleleaf with other boards. MAPLELEAF BANS PEOPLE WITH VIEWS THAT OPPOSE THE HARPER GOVERNMENT ! How does that sound? Sounds true to me! It has certainly been my experience .

So it is unelected officials that represent the Six Nations?

It is too confusing. It doesn't sound like a unified group. Are there any polling numbers?

How many off reserve Six Nations people are there? How many have intermarried with other and lost their status? Do they have a vote too?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Much discussion!

First according to our Constitution ALL the people are in charge. The Royaner are representatives of the people and everything must be brought back to us for discussion, resolution and ratification. No agreement is valid until we say it is and we instruct our Royaner to sign on our behalf.

The government's position now or in 1925 or 1995 is irrelevent. They have used all kinds of underhandedness to hide the real issue. The land - the entire Haldimand Tract is ours, and has been ours for thousands of years. The Crown neither purchased for us or gave it to us. The Haldimand Proclamation was an official recognition of our land, and a guarantee by the Crown that we would have it forever and they would protect it for us. The Royal Proclamation basically says the same thing amd it prohibits anyone from purchasing or leasing the lands. Only the Crown could enter into treaties for the land (sharing agreements) and there has never been a valid transfer of title. The payment the British made to the Mississaugas was not a buy out because they did not own the land. We had earlier treatied with them to watch over the lands on our behalf when our people were called back to the Great Council to help defend our interests. The Mississaugas were well aware that we would return one day and when we did finally return the British offer the Mississaugas compensation to help them relocated back to their homelands north of Superior.

The Canadian government's position is irrelevent because it has no authority to define our territory. The new lands claim process that we have put in place is that we own the lands on the tract and it is up to the Canadian government to prove that there was ever a sale, lease or transfer authorized by our Royaner. Canada is in trouble because the neither Confederacy or the Crown ever authorized the leases they claim exist. The paper may have a few signatures on them but the British and the Canadian politicians knew that such an agreement was not binding UNLESS they approached the people in public meeting AND the 50 Royaner that represent the Confederacy authorized it AND the agreement contained the signature of the Queen / King. You will note that none of the documentation Canada has presented thusfar contains the requisite approvals.

The government's position is irrelevent because they have no authority over us, and never have. The forced imposition of a band government may have removed the Confederacy Council from the mainstream but it is alive and well. It is still the government of the people for the Haudenosaunee and nothing that Canada says or does affects that.

The government has recognized our sovereignty and authority over the tract. Negotiations with the government has nothing to do with land claims. It is about what dod we do with places like Kitchener and Caledonia - settler communities within our territory. The negotiations are focusing on ways and means to deal with those who by the malfeasance of government have found themselves in the middle of this complex problem. We can certainly explore eviction as one of the options, albeit on the extreme. We can also present the citizenship scenerio as an option too. There is also talk about the replacement of lands adjacent to the tract that will redefine the boundaries of the Haldimand Tract. However, our main concern with this proposal is that these are lands that we have treatied with the Mississaugas and the government does not have their authority to interfere. We are also looking at options that can't be revealed right now because to do so may needlessly concern residents. It is suffice to say that there are no land issues and that the government has recognized our authority for full title and it is negotiating to get the best deal possible for the settlers living there.

As to using force or coercion to relocate the settlers that is something for novelists, at this point in time. We are capable for sure but it may be unnecessary since you government may be willing to relocate people on our behalf. And whether you like it or not, should an eviction be required it would be handled under expropriation laws, given that the removal of settlers to another area IS in the public interest, and it is legally binding. Canada cannot protect those that it too considers illegal occupiers of our territory. Like the dual citizenship of the Lebanese-Canadians it will provide relief for those willing to evacuate. However, should someone refuse the offer then they will be left to their own devices. To us that means if they stay (considering that is the likely resolve of our negotiations) they will become automatic citizens, accountable to us and will forfeit any aid they might have received. As mentioned earliler, current and back taxes may be paid directly to us are we search for new revenues to maintain the infrastructure on our lands.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

As to using force or coercion to relocate the settlers that is something for novelists, at this point in time. We are capable for sure but it may be unnecessary since you government may be willing to relocate people on our behalf. And whether you like it or not, should an eviction be required it would be handled under expropriation laws, given that the removal of settlers to another area IS in the public interest, and it is legally binding. Canada cannot protect those that it too considers illegal occupiers of our territory. Like the dual citizenship of the Lebanese-Canadians it will provide relief for those willing to evacuate. However, should someone refuse the offer then they will be left to their own devices. To us that means if they stay (considering that is the likely resolve of our negotiations) they will become automatic citizens, accountable to us and will forfeit any aid they might have received. As mentioned earliler, current and back taxes may be paid directly to us are we search for new revenues to maintain the infrastructure on our lands.

I think you are dreaming on the evictions. Good luck with that. When does it start?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Your doubt is your loss........Canadians are much more complacent than the Israelis living on the West Bank were.....

O:nen

[Riverwind]

And whether you like it or not, should an eviction be required it would be handled under expropriation laws, given that the removal of settlers to another area IS in the public interest, and it is legally binding.

Legally binding under whose laws? The laws of Canada? Those can be changed. The laws of Six Nations? Those laws do not apply to those lands. International law? International law is unenforceable and I am pretty sure that the UN is going to be more concerned with places like Israel and Iraq for the foreseeable future.

[jdobbin]

Your doubt is your loss........Canadians are much more complacent than the Israelis living on the West Bank were.....

I think you are seriously mistaken that 500,000 people will leave their homes or submit to unelected officials.

And unless you are prepared to kill them, you won't make them move.

And like I asked: when does it start? Today?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You government has hinted that they could use expropriation laws to move the settlers. They won't change the tools they need to make a peaceful transition.

Haudnosaunee law governs the tract and may soon government people living in the tract. You may want to resist that fact, but reality will dictate the course. The UN is on our side for whatever it is worth. There is already lots of precedence under international law for the safe and lawful eviction of settlers from indegeneous lands, if that is the dispute mechanism you would prefer. Canada's legal system is impotent. You really have no choice.

When I first started to post here, I did think you might be an intelligent chap Riverwind, but the more you respond the more you resemble something that was dug up from the tar sands....a little slow and pretty thick. Perhaps if you weren't so lazy you might consider doing some research before you make general statements. You seem to be the last one off the wheel and it is getting pretty monotonous trying to follow you incompentent circular logic. Just 'cause YOU say it doen't make it so. An opinion is a poor substitute for fact and truth.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

Legally binding under whose laws? The laws of Canada? Those can be changed. The laws of Six Nations? Those laws do not apply to those lands. International law? International law is unenforceable and I am pretty sure that the UN is going to be more concerned with places like Israel and Iraq for the foreseeable future.

I think this guy is talking out of his hat. There are so many examples of First Nations out there helping their people within Canada that this type of talk is just embarrassing. I can think of some excellent examples of First Nations doing worthwhile things and not acting with the divisiveness of this fellow. How about you?

[jdobbin]

You government has hinted that they could use expropriation laws to move the settlers. They won't change the tools they need to make a peaceful transition.

I have never read anywhere that Canada or Ontario would move people. And to where? You've said there is no such thing as Canada? Do they go back to countries in Europe, Asia and Africa?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

YOUR government is not the same thing as me saying that Canada does not exist as a sovereign nations. It is still your government - just in legal terms it is only a Crown Corporation without the autonomy to change supreme law.

Your government's position at the negotiations has not yet been made public. You wouldn't have heard it yet because your bargaining representatives do not need your concurrence to make decisions. On the other hand, ours does and so we are in the loop long before you even get wind of it.

BTW we are not First Nations in Canada. We are the Haudensaunee Confederacy, something completely different.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

I think this guy is talking out of his hat. There are so many examples of First Nations out there helping their people within Canada that this type of talk is just embarrassing. I can think of some excellent examples of First Nations doing worthwhile things and not acting with the divisiveness of this fellow. How about you?

Certainly. I was planning on giving up on this thread. However, what I fear is the radicalism and perverse sense of entitlement expressed by this individual is shared by many others in his community. It seems like a segment of native society is being brainwashed into believing that they are superior to all other Canadians and that they have an absolute right to take whatever they feel entitled to without any consideration for how other people may be hurt by their demands.

My hope is the decision makers in his community are more pragmatic. Unfortunately, nothing I have heard in the news recently gives me any reason to be optimistic.

[jdobbin]

Certainly. I was planning on giving up on this thread. However, what I fear is the radicalism and perverse sense of entitlement expressed by this individual is shared by many others in his community. It seems like a segment of native society is being brainwashed into believing that they are superior to all other Canadians and that they have an absolute right to take whatever they feel entitled to without any consideration for how other people may be hurt by their demands.

My hope is the decision makers in his community are more pragmatic. Unfortunately, nothing I have heard in the news recently gives me any reason to be optimistic.

I will not be responding to him anymore personally.

I was just thinking of some of the brilliant native businesses out there that have been employing and serving both Native and non-Native alike.

Peace Hills Trust is an excellent financial institute. The Native Investment and Trade Association is great at helping Natives find meaningful work.

There are many First Nations people working their way through universities and finding work as nurses, doctors and social workers, teachers.

These are the stories I like I hear. I am willing to hear about problems involving land claims and the like. Some of these claims are legitimate. But I am not going to listen to ridiculous stories of eviction anymore.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

It would serve you well to give up on this thread Riverwind, given that you haven't added anything new in about 10 pages.

The Two Row Wampum is the guide. You fear that I am proposing we are superior and I thank you for that compliment. However, our goal is to do what we set out just about 500 years ago to do- to operate independent of you and your settler mentality. We don't need your system, or your false sense of knowing what is best for us. However, your government has made a huge blunder and we are not about to pay for their mistake. The evidence we are concerned about what happens to others also caught in this untenable situation is our agreement to negotiate and try to find a reasonable and effective solution to the illegal occupation of our territory. So anything that you say to diminish this is just sour grapes coming from an impotent, ineffective cheap-labour conservative, who no longer controls all that he thought he did.

If you have a problem with the results then I suggest that you take it up with your government...as if they care.....You see they main interest seems to be what will happen to the businesses now located in the territory, Their concern for you as a citizen is less than ours. They know that if they can relocate the industry and businesses that people will follow. They have also been alerted to the fact that the real estate values will drop dramatically there and so they are looking at compensation packages that will help offset that burden.

You really should be a little more open to reseraching what we are all about. WE - the People - are the leaders and the decision-makers in our communties. The Roayner at the table are our servants and they only represent what WE tell them to represent. If they don't, then we impeach them and replace them with someone who does.

Tell me Riverwind....what do YOU have to lose? It must be something substantial since you spend som much time trying to dismiss the reality and truth of this situation with your rhetoric.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

Can you be more specific about what you have heard in the news that concerns you?

Also, can you explain how holding legal title to land equates to "a perverse sense of entitlement"

These sound to me like thinly veiled insults ... have I understood correctly ...?

Anyone who thinks they are owed something because of who their great-great-great grandparents are has a perverse sense of entitlement. That kind of thinking is something our society buried with feudalism. What would you think if the descendants Louis XVI demanded that the French gov't compensate them for the loss of property in the French Revolution? Native land claims are no different.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The problem with a buy-out is that the Canadian government won't (and can't) pay the $1.5 trillion fair market value pricetag. It is out of their league. It is more likely that we will settle the large occupied areas like K-W if the government can secure enough equivalent lands without creating another land issue with other nations down the road. What we're really talking about are the spaces in between and those people need to make alternative arrangements. Whether or not places like Paris, or other villages become protected is another thing since it and the surrounding area is valuable in terms of resources and tillable farmland. As I have maintain, our concern is for the land - the protection and preservation of it.

You make a point very well jdobbin by desisting in discussion. You exemplify the typical Canadian politic, that when you can no longer back up your opinions, you return to sleeping and burying your heads in the sand. It is no wonder to me why the Canadian government is so corrupt and out of touch with the ordinary citizen. They can't solicit an opinion when all that you can must is apathy and indignant dissolution and when they do steal fomr you, or use their position to their own advantage, the typical response is deny it is happening and look for flowery visions to fill the sight in your minds of actual corruption.

Thank you for taking it this far. Though I had hoped you would have learned something, it appears whatever that might have been is for naught. It is impossible to expose sanity to people when they prefer to remain comfortable in their own insanity....I'll keep trying though. Surely others realize the light is brighter than the doom and gloom you protect.

O:nen

[jbg]

....I am pretty sure that the UN is going to be more concerned with places like Israel and Iraq for the foreseeable future.

As if there aren't other atrocities in places like Sudan and Congo. Oh, I forgot, all sides on that one are on the UN teat.

[Okwaho]

I'm not that familiar with the B.C. cases. Negotiations are taking place now?

The BC case is not as black and white as he claims. Delgamuukw is judgement that covers this issue. Under Delgamuukw bands must prove that they occupied the land to the exclusion of others before 1846, the year Britain declared sovereignty over the area that became British Columbia. Then they have to prove some degree of continuity from that occupation until today.

Futhermore, the SCC made it very clear in Delgamuukw that it wants to see a negotiated settlement that achieves "the reconciliation of the preexistence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.”.

IOW - natives groups most definately do not have title to the lands today. They have a right to prove their claim to title and the gov't must enter into good faith negotiations, however, the court has also set the clear expectation that aboriginal groups must be reasonable in their demands as well.

The 2000 Nisga'a Treaty was settled OUTSIDE of the parameters of the 1997 Delgamuukw case (BCTC process). Treaties are not made out of court cases they are the result of concessions! By agreeing to a treaty the Nation is ceding land to the Crown. Otherwise there would be absolutely no need to enter into one!

[Riverwind]

That's just another one of your ignorant racist insults, Riv. Do you personally really not understand the racist venom that imbues everything you say here?

There is absolutely nothing about race in my statement. Native activists keep talking about their 'inheritance' and how that that taken away from them by the rampaging mobs of settlers. Louis XIV and other European nobility had title to a lot of land and had many rights and privileges that normal citizens could not have. They were often given these things for services that their ancestors provided to the crown. However, they lost everything in an illegal coup. The nobility in England did not have to go through the same brutal cleansing but they eventually had all of their inheritances stripped away by a majority who decided that inherited privileges are not compatible with the principal of egalitarian democracy.

Aboriginal groups want to create an aboriginal aristocracy in this country - they freely admit it their postings on this board. They say they are entitled to do this because it is their 'inheritance'. They also claim that they are inherently better at taking care of the land than non-aboriginals. This is exactly the same argument the European nobility used to protect their rights when faced with a population that was no longer interested in having a society where selected minority enjoyed special status because of their birth.

I will concede that I got caught up with using the term race-based rights because it is a concept that everyone understands due to the recent experience of south africa. However, I think a comparison to European nobility is quite reasonable and, as I said, race does not even enter to the equation. Most importantly, the inherited privileges of the nobility in Europe were still wrong even if race was not a factor. For same reason, inherited privileges for the wanna be aboriginal aristocracy are wrong as well.

[Okwaho]

That's just another one of your ignorant racist insults, Riv. Do you personally really not understand the racist venom that imbues everything you say here?

There is absolutely nothing about race in my statement. Native activists keep talking about their 'inheritance' and how that that taken away from them by the rampaging mobs of settlers. Louis XIV and other European nobility had title to a lot of land and had many rights and privileges that normal citizens could not have. They were often given these things for services that their ancestors provided to the crown. However, they lost everything in an illegal coup. The nobility in England did not have to go through the same brutal cleansing but they eventually had all of their inheritances stripped away by a majority who decided that inherited privileges are not compatible with the principal of egalitarian democracy.

Aboriginal groups want to create an aboriginal aristocracy in this country - they freely admit it their postings on this board. They say they are entitled to do this because it is their 'inheritance'. They also claim that they are inherently better at taking care of the land than non-aboriginals. This is exactly the same argument the European nobility used to protect their rights when faced with a population that was no longer interested in having a society where selected minority enjoyed special status because of their birth.

I will concede that I got caught up with using the term race-based rights because it is a concept that everyone understands due to the recent experience of south africa. However, I think a comparison to European nobility is quite reasonable and, as I said, race does not even enter to the equation. Most importantly, the inherited privileges of the nobility in Europe were still wrong even if race was not a factor. For same reason, inherited privileges for the wanna be aboriginal aristocracy are wrong as well.

If you're not racist then you should at least express a little humility and show some gratitude instead of attitude towards the people that made you the proud Canadian you are today, and fought again to keep it that way!

[Riverwind]

If you're not racist then you should at least express a little humility and show some gratitude instead of attitude towards the people that made you the proud Canadian you are today, and fought again to keep it that way!

Respect is a two way street - if you want it then you have to show some. Look at the posts on this board where some aboriginal posters brag about how they own everything and anyone who questions that claim is labelled a racist. Or other posters that insist that evicting a 1/2 million people from their homes is no big deal because they are just 'settlers' with no rights. Such statements are absurd and go against all legal precedent and yet they are considered the gospel truth among some parts of the native community now.

If you have read my posts you will see that I take an unbending principled stand on these issues, but I have also expressed a willingness to accept compromises that don't give me the 100% equal rights for everyone outcome that I would like to see.

I think the wording of the of the Delgamuukw judgement states my feelings exactly:

Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on both sides, reinforced by judgments of this Court, that we will achieve… “the reconciliation of the preexistence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” Let us face it, we are all here to stay.

If that is not a statement of respect then I don't know what is.

[Okwaho]

If you're not racist then you should at least express a little humility and show some gratitude instead of attitude towards the people that made you the proud Canadian you are today, and fought again to keep it that way!

Respect is a two way street - if you want it then you have to show some. Look at the posts on this board where some aboriginal posters brag about how they own everything and anyone who questions that claim is labelled a racist. Or other posters that insist that evicting a 1/2 million people from their homes is no big deal because they are just 'settlers' with no rights. Such statements are absurd and go against all legal precedent and yet they are considered the gospel truth among some parts of the native community now.

If you have read my posts you will see that I take an unbending principled stand on these issues, but I have also expressed a willingness to accept compromises that don't give me the 100% equal rights for everyone outcome that I would like to see.

I think the wording of the of the Delgamuukw judgement states my feelings exactly:

Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on both sides, reinforced by judgments of this Court, that we will achieve… “the reconciliation of the preexistence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” Let us face it, we are all here to stay.

If that is not a statement of respect then I don't know what is.

First of all, I'm not demanding respect. I said humility and gratitude for the fact that my ancestors made and kept you a Canadian x3.

Secondly, if I were to be invited to your house, am I your equal while I'm there? After I've been there a few years can I just have it and you can go live in the tool shed?

Lastly, We have given, and given and given. How much more do you really need to take? I hope you're as astute with Canadian-Native history as you are law! We've been evicted from our homes for hundreds of years but, that's O.K. it's all in the name of progress I guess. Like you said; it's a two way street! Time for Canada to ante up!

[jdobbin]

First of all, I'm not demanding respect. I said humility and gratitude for the fact that my ancestors made and kept you a Canadian x3.

Secondly, your painting all of us with the same brush...bad mistake!

Third, if were to be invited to your house am I your equal while I'm there? After I've been there a few years can I just have it?

Remember that you're speaking to just one person and that being angry at them isn't likely to convince them of anything.

People are looking for workable solutions to problems. I'd be interested in hearing them.

[Riverwind]

First of all, I'm not demanding respect. I said humility and gratitude for the fact that my ancestors made and kept you a Canadian x3.

A lot people built this country. None of them are alive today. Your ancestors contributed to the success of the country as did mine. However, what our ancestors did makes no difference today and should not affect how we treat each other today.

Secondly, your painting all of us with the same brush...bad mistake!

Then stand up and refute what some other aboriginal posters have said if you do not agree. If you are silent and let those people do the talking then how can others know that you are different?

Third, if were to be invited to your house am I your equal while I'm there? After I've been there a few years can I just have it?

Have you ever heard of the statute of limitations? It is a well established principal in common law that says crimes cannot be prosecuted after a enough time elapses. The statute of limitations definitely applies to anything that happened over a century ago. If someone stole your property today then you would be entitled to use the legal system to get it back. If someone stole your ancestors property that is unfortunate but there is nothing that can or should be done today.

[Okwaho]

First of all, I'm not demanding respect. I said humility and gratitude for the fact that my ancestors made and kept you a Canadian x3.

Secondly, your painting all of us with the same brush...bad mistake!

Third, if were to be invited to your house am I your equal while I'm there? After I've been there a few years can I just have it?

Remember that you're speaking to just one person and that being angry at them isn't likely to convince them of anything.

People are looking for workable solutions to problems. I'd be interested in hearing them.

I realize that. I was responding to his post to me!