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

[dances with fishes]

Kwe Halito hi

If you are asking then it is not your time to know

but instead of wasting time and space here do a search on your computer

i am sure you will find lots of info look at more than one source

peace

[jdobbin]

Kwe Halito hi

If you are asking then it is not your time to know

but instead of wasting time and space here do a search on your computer

i am sure you will find lots of info look at more than one source

peace

I won't be doing any search based on the vagueness of your answer.

[saga]

Could it be the white brother still does not see who they are fighting?

Welcome to the forum.

What white brother are you referring to?

I am curious too ... but I think it is big business ... corporate power ...

[jdobbin]

I am curious too ... but I think it is big business ... corporate power ...

Hard to tell what it means and the reluctance of the poster to be specific doesn't really enlighten anyone.

[saga]

I am curious too ... but I think it is big business ... corporate power ...

Hard to tell what it means and the reluctance of the poster to be specific doesn't really enlighten anyone.

the Bilderberg perhaps

[yam]

. . . . im guessing that this is a cross between a native idea about the white colonial conquerors, mingled with some christian bible reference. Therefore the white brother = all of us that are white are fighting each other as well as killing other colored brothers. As the 'poem' goes on he/she mentions feeding Baal - im not certain but i think its somekind of biblical ref to the devil . . .

So according to the poster we are all fighting to serve somekind of ultimate evil one!!!

Iv seen this stuff on another forum - hence my attempt to guess

Whatever . . . its not my cup of tea

[saga]

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

With today’s increasing and aggressive actions by Native people to obtain concrete resolutions to land claims, will we see an increase of racism and hostility or an increased awareness of our Native people and Canada’s misinformed history?

The Caledonia carnival of controversy has been stirring up debates all over the country. While some discussions are heated with hostile racism, others have steered to a new road of informative education that many Canadian citizens were completely unaware of. See example of other thread click here

I felt it was necessary to start this thread in a national header as the issues underlying the Caledonia situation and the Six Nations crisis stem from the lack of knowledge in the following areas, treaties, taxation and the constitutional rights of Aboriginal people. Hopefully this thread will shed some much needed insight and knowledge of these issues from a variety of Canadian perspectives.

While I encourage all opinions, it will be beneficial to all to have comments that provide informative links, educational facts or practical solutions for consideration.

Haudenosaunee Six Nations are not aggressors. The OPP aggressively tried to remove them. The Haudenosaunee are peaceful and take defensive action when attacked or invaded. Right now there is one car at the gate and a few people at the back of the site. Not the big deal that its made out to be ... at this time. Monty Kwinter has it about right ... The are occupying land they know legal precedents indicate is theirs - unlawful surrender ... it is unceded territory and thus not Canadian. It appears that the government is stalling developments and negotiating quickly on the entire Haldimand Proclamation lands, which is their claim. This week they claimed a windfarm. They want to get into sustainable energy in a big way

The Caledonia carnival ... that is some nasty town and county people. ... yahoos and business people associated with the former development and their colleagues ... are the ones screeching the most, though they got compensated. They are gearing up for another Friday Idiot Night rally this week ...

http://www.sisis.nativeweb.org/

Excellent information from Haudenosaunee Six Nations here ... history, treaties, residential schools, media, archive of updates from the site through the events

It addresses some of your questions.

also timmers videos at youtube

heres one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUVZgfkmzbw

Negotiations seem to be moving along quickly, judging by the confidence shown by some posting here

reclamationinfo.com is a source of more information.

http://www.sixnations.ca/ is the elected Band Council (government) site. The Band Council, just prior to the OPP raid, voted for the traditional Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council to take the lead in the land claim. This was a major event as the Confederacy was criminalized by the Indian Act of 1924. The government balked and then agreed to negotiate with the Confederacy.

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/index.html

http://sixnations.buffnet.net/Threats_to_T...al_Governments/

This last one is a statement of the position of the Confederacy regarding warriors involved in illegal activities that threatened peace and safety in other locations.

The warriors at the land reclamation were chosen by Clan Mothers initially and more came later ... the Confederacys leads the reclamation, and they indicated influence but not always complete control of all individuals. At this point in time, the reclamation site is very quiet ... unless Caledonia gets noisy again as they threaten.

The best weapon the Haudenosaunee have is that they are unarmed ... by order of the Clan Mothers who have responsibility for the land. They are unarmed because if they were armed they would be killed.

They want the land back, and their sovereignty as they are entitled on unceded land.

[dances with fishes]

I am curious too ... but I think it is big business ... corporate power ...

Hard to tell what it means and the reluctance of the poster to be specific doesn't really enlighten anyone.

Kwe Halito hi

I see there is some interesting answers to your question.If i give people the answers

how are they going to learn to think for themselves.For at this time we are being given a choice

continue to follow the lies and doctrine of those in control "men"or return to the great spirit creator

from where we "all" started.

The white brother is not the colour of ones skin but a way of thinking, we are all the same. Colour is used by man to devide

white; blanc; void of spirit. Many moons ago the people seperated from the creator,now it is time to come home.

Samuel : 9

Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

11. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17. He will take the tenth of your sheep : AND YE SHALL BE HIS SERVANTS!

18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen YOU; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

19. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

19. That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

You see, the creator can not be corrupted this is why they wanted a king

peace

[jdobbin]

You see, the creator can not be corrupted this is why they wanted a king

I don't really believe in a creator. I have no problem with people who do have belief but I don't personally think about god or a higher power.

[scribblet]

I havn't had time to read the whole thread so hope this isn't too far off topic. This is excerpted from the NP, (subscription required) Race based fisheries and rights are and never will be right for this country and ALL Canadians.

Native politicians are pretty disingenuous when it comes to the the constitution and treaty rightsas West coast fishing is a case in point.

Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled there is no constitutional right to a commercial salmon fishery on B.C.'s Fraser River. They have said there are rights to fish for social, ceremonial and sustenance purposes. (The courts have not expanded "social" to include separate commercial fisheries.)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in June that the federal policy which keeps commercial fishermen (non-native and native) on the docks while some selected natives fish is constitutional. In other words, the federal government may, if it desires, continue to separate native fisheries as a matter of

discretionary policy.

Past court judgments do not support the chief's false assertion that the government "will actively work to strip away a right that been proven and upheld in Canadians courts." This is complete rhetoric and avoids court decisions etc.

As the Library of Parliament notes: "The trial judge held that the Sto:los' aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes did not include the right to sell the fish; consequently, he convicted the appellant."

Fontaine and others are attempting to equate actual treaty and constitutional rights with a non-existent "right" to a native-only, separate commercial salmon fishery on the Fraser river. It is pure

political spin.

NO preferential race based treatments are legal or right in this country.

[saga]

I havn't had time to read the whole thread so hope this isn't too far off topic. This is excerpted from the NP, (subscription required) Race based fisheries and rights are and never will be right for this country and ALL Canadians.

Native politicians are pretty disingenuous when it comes to the the constitution and treaty rightsas West coast fishing is a case in point.

Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled there is no constitutional right to a commercial salmon fishery on B.C.'s Fraser River. They have said there are rights to fish for social, ceremonial and sustenance purposes. (The courts have not expanded "social" to include separate commercial fisheries.)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in June that the federal policy which keeps commercial fishermen (non-native and native) on the docks while some selected natives fish is constitutional. In other words, the federal government may, if it desires, continue to separate native fisheries as a matter of

discretionary policy.

Past court judgments do not support the chief's false assertion that the government "will actively work to strip away a right that been proven and upheld in Canadians courts." This is complete rhetoric and avoids court decisions etc.

As the Library of Parliament notes: "The trial judge held that the Sto:los' aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes did not include the right to sell the fish; consequently, he convicted the appellant."

Fontaine and others are attempting to equate actual treaty and constitutional rights with a non-existent "right" to a native-only, separate commercial salmon fishery on the Fraser river. It is pure

political spin.

NO preferential race based treatments are legal or right in this country.

AHH ... but on sovereign Indigenous land ... that is not Canada ... then there will be choices for them. ... Canadas laws will not apply... That is their whole point in negotiations and discussions across the land! Unceded territiries (i.e., where government surrenders were not valid ... as most of them were not) ... unceded territories are sovereign Indigenous territories.

It is not about race ... It is about Canadas original agreements and treaties with Indigenous people, that Canada is now bound by law to honour. It is not about making up new rules, but abiding by the original rules. Canada has abused its power over Indigenous people, and is now being held accountable. ... and we all knew we were on Indian land ... no big surprise ...

[Okwaho]

I havn't had time to read the whole thread so hope this isn't too far off topic. This is excerpted from the NP, (subscription required) Race based fisheries and rights are and never will be right for this country and ALL Canadians.

Native politicians are pretty disingenuous when it comes to the the constitution and treaty rightsas West coast fishing is a case in point.

Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled there is no constitutional right to a commercial salmon fishery on B.C.'s Fraser River. They have said there are rights to fish for social, ceremonial and sustenance purposes. (The courts have not expanded "social" to include separate commercial fisheries.)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in June that the federal policy which keeps commercial fishermen (non-native and native) on the docks while some selected natives fish is constitutional. In other words, the federal government may, if it desires, continue to separate native fisheries as a matter of

discretionary policy.

Past court judgments do not support the chief's false assertion that the government "will actively work to strip away a right that been proven and upheld in Canadians courts." This is complete rhetoric and avoids court decisions etc.

As the Library of Parliament notes: "The trial judge held that the Sto:los' aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes did not include the right to sell the fish; consequently, he convicted the appellant."

Fontaine and others are attempting to equate actual treaty and constitutional rights with a non-existent "right" to a native-only, separate commercial salmon fishery on the Fraser river. It is pure

political spin.

NO preferential race based treatments are legal or right in this country.

AHH ... but on sovereign Indigenous land ... that is not Canada ... then there will be choices for them. ... Canadas laws will not apply... That is their whole point in negotiations and discussions across the land! Unceded territiries (i.e., where government surrenders were not valid ... as most of them were not) ... unceded territories are sovereign Indigenous territories.

It is not about race ... It is about Canadas original agreements and treaties with Indigenous people, that Canada is now bound by law to honour. It is not about making up new rules, but abiding by the original rules. Canada has abused its power over Indigenous people, and is now being held accountable. ... and we all knew we were on Indian land ... no big surprise ...

Well said Saga you've done your homework! The province of British Columbia is what is refered to as "beyond the treaty frontier". That means that all of the Nations in that province are sovereign and still hold 100% title to their lands. The only treaty ever signed is The Nisga'a Treaty of April 13, 2000! The other Nations are still functioning via "tribal custom and usage".

[jdobbin]

Well said Saga you've done your homework! The province of British Columbia is what is refered to as "beyond the treaty frontier". That means that all of the Nations in that province are sovereign and still hold 100% title to their lands. The only treaty ever signed is The Nisga'a Treaty of April 13, 2000! The other Nations are still functioning via "tribal custom and usage".

What does it mean for B.C. if all the titles are legal? Does B.C. cease to exist? Will non-Natives be evicted from the land?

[jdobbin]

It is not about race ... It is about Canadas original agreements and treaties with Indigenous people, that Canada is now bound by law to honour. It is not about making up new rules, but abiding by the original rules. Canada has abused its power over Indigenous people, and is now being held accountable. ... and we all knew we were on Indian land ... no big surprise ...

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.?

[Riverwind]

Well said Saga you've done your homework! The province of British Columbia is what is refered to as "beyond the treaty frontier". That means that all of the Nations in that province are sovereign and still hold 100% title to their lands.

No they don't - they will have to 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.

The final words of the Delgamuukw SCC judgement which is the basis for you claim are quite telling:

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.

In other words, the SCC ruled that the only sovereign power is the gov't of Canada. The only rights that aboriginal groups have is the collective title of _some_ of the land. The SCC has made a clear statement that this issue is ultimately a political issue - not a legal one. Furthermore, the gov't is free to offer compensation in lieu of land if the land is already owned and the aboriginal groups would have no choice but to accept this compensation. It is unlikely that the SCC would ever rule that large amounts of privately owned land must be handed over to aboriginals.

[Okwaho]

It is not about race ... It is about Canadas original agreements and treaties with Indigenous people, that Canada is now bound by law to honour. It is not about making up new rules, but abiding by the original rules. Canada has abused its power over Indigenous people, and is now being held accountable. ... and we all knew we were on Indian land ... no big surprise ...

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.?

That is entirely up to the Nations in B.C.

[jdobbin]

That is entirely up to the Nations in B.C.

The situation is not likely to be a peaceful one then.

[Riverwind]

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.?

That is entirely up to the Nations in B.C.

No it isn't. Try reading the Delgamuukw judgement and you see that there is an onus on the gov't to negotiate a fair compromise, however, there is an equal onus on aboriginal groups to make reasonable demands. Kicking people off their lands would not be reasonable and the SCC would never allow that.

[jdobbin]

I've never read that judgement. Is Delgamuukw a federal decision?

[Okwaho]

It is not about race ... It is about Canadas original agreements and treaties with Indigenous people, that Canada is now bound by law to honour. It is not about making up new rules, but abiding by the original rules. Canada has abused its power over Indigenous people, and is now being held accountable. ... and we all knew we were on Indian land ... no big surprise ...

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.?

You'd have to ask the Nations in B.C.

[Riverwind]

I've never read that judgement. Is Delgamuukw a federal decision?

http://www.bctreaty.net/files_3/pdf_documents/delgamuukw.pdf

[jdobbin]

I see.

Is there something similar from the federal court on something like the Six Nations claim?

[Riverwind]

Is there something similar from the federal court on something like the Six Nations claim?

I don't know, however, there is no reason to believe that the SCC would look at the case any less pragmatically than Delgamuukw. The Delgamuukw judgment is hailed as a victory for aboriginal rights, however, the actual judgment is much more nuanced. For example, the judgement says:

This means that the Province will need to consult with First Nations before granting any interest in aboriginal lands to others. Whether this means that a First Nation’s consent would be required will depend on the circumstances.

This statement implies that 1) the gov't is still entitled to grant use of aboriginal lands to others and 2) concent will not always be required.

This means aboriginal title means a lot less than some other posters would like to claim.

The Six Nations claim itself is not based on Delgamuukw, however, the SCC has made it clear in Delgamuukw that peaceful co-existance between native groups and non-native groups is a high priority. Which tells me that the chances of a slam dunk victory in court for Six Nations is pretty small.

[saga]

I see.

Is there something similar from the federal court on something like the Six Nations claim?

Six Nations are in negotiations with the federal government for the Haldimand Tract in lieu of court action, at the governments request.

I think the case more relevant to Winnipeg is Toronto. The federal government has acknowledged aboriginal title of the Mississaugas Nations and is currently negotiating the price. I expect this is the model for settled areas ... unless the Indigenous Nation claims the land instead of compensation, BUT the government has covered itself there because it simply does not accept such claims.

The Six Nations land reclamation occurred because

- they know the court precedents ... in Canada and the International Courts ... are in their favour

- the land was in private hands so the government would not accept a land claim

- the land, a burial ground, was not occupied but was being desecrated by a sprawl development

- In their culture, they have an obligation to the seven generations before and the seven generations to come.

- The organizers are the seventh generation from those who were forced to give up the land.

- It is about sovereignty.

[Okwaho]

Well said Saga you've done your homework! The province of British Columbia is what is refered to as "beyond the treaty frontier". That means that all of the Nations in that province are sovereign and still hold 100% title to their lands.

No they don't - they will have to 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.

The final words of the Delgamuukw SCC judgement which is the basis for you claim are quite telling:

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.

In other words, the SCC ruled that the only sovereign power is the gov't of Canada. The only rights that aboriginal groups have is the collective title of _some_ of the land. The SCC has made a clear statement that this issue is ultimately a political issue - not a legal one. Furthermore, the gov't is free to offer compensation in lieu of land if the land is already owned and the aboriginal groups would have no choice but to accept this compensation. It is unlikely that the SCC would ever rule that large amounts of privately owned land must be handed over to aboriginals.

Here's one for you. Guerin v. The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335