Aboriginals/First Nations in Canada

[FTA Lawyer]

She:kon!

If you demand things because of 'morality'.....

Nope. We're demanding equity (not equality - we're not interested in joining your society or your corporate business you call Canada).

O:nen

It is very interesting indeed that you would describe what you seek with reference to a term that not only can be defined as "natural justice", but shares its name with the ancient British legal doctrine of legal fairness. It is equally interesting that it further supports my previous posts about following the treaty if you want to enforce it.

One of the legal principles of equity is known as the "clean hands doctrine". As defined by Black's:

The principle that a party cannot seek equitable relief or assert an equitable defense if that party has violated an equitable principle...such a party is described as having 'unclean hands'.

International law will not look to grant the Six Nations equitable relief if they continue to conduct themselves with outright defiance to civility and the rule of law.

FTA

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

International law will not look to grant the Six Nations equitable relief if they continue to conduct themselves with outright defiance to civility and the rule of law.

Six Nations IS conducting itself to the rule of law and in with significant civility. EVERY confrontation has been the result of an outside attack and or instigation by the Caledonians. So before you go making sweeping gneralizations about something you know nothing about, I would suggest that you take the advanced course on Haudenosaunee history. We have fully honoured every single agreement and treaty we ever entered into. And given that Canada has violated its own rule of law by ignoring the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation, then they are guilty by your declaration!

The assertion and defense of sovereignty is a right reinforced and protected by the UN. (Look at Israel's actions as example). The international law is in our favour. Canada refuses to participate in an international forum to arbitrate these issues. Instead they have attempted over the years to keep their abhorrent actions secret and censored from the world's scruitiny.

Currently, for the second time in about 3 years, the UN has condemned Canada's treatment of aboriginals. You can't believe for a moment that they would accuse us that asserting our sovereign right is unlawful........

O:nen

[FTA Lawyer]

The assertion and defense of sovereignty is a right reinforced and protected by the UN. (Look at Israel's actions as example). The international law is in our favour. Canada refuses to participate in an international forum to arbitrate these issues. Instead they have attempted over the years to keep their abhorrent actions secret and censored from the world's scruitiny.

Currently, for the second time in about 3 years, the UN has condemned Canada's treatment of aboriginals. You can't believe for a moment that they would accuse us that asserting our sovereign right is unlawful........

O:nen

Well, actually........

Additionally, it has been settled law since Calvin's Case, of 1608,

that the Crown's jurisdiction is coterminal with the boundaries of the country.

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state. In the 1920's the

council of hereditary chiefs attempted to obtain international recognition of the

Six Nations purported sovereignty at the League of Nations

and in 1945 before

representatives of the United Nations

. In 1921, legal counsel for a Mrs. Sere,

a member of the Six Nations residing on the Tyendinaga Indian Reserve, argued,

unsuccessfully, that the Six Nations were "an independent people" and "allies"

of the Crown, and not subjects of the Crown.

Here's the full paper:

The Six Nations: A Neglected Aspect of Canadian Legal History

I can stand in my neighbour's yard and declare it my sovereign territory...doesn't make it so...

FTA

[jdobbin]

Well, actually........

Additionally, it has been settled law since Calvin's Case, of 1608,

that the Crown's jurisdiction is coterminal with the boundaries of the country.

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state. In the 1920's the

council of hereditary chiefs attempted to obtain international recognition of the

Six Nations purported sovereignty at the League of Nations

and in 1945 before

representatives of the United Nations

. In 1921, legal counsel for a Mrs. Sere,

a member of the Six Nations residing on the Tyendinaga Indian Reserve, argued,

unsuccessfully, that the Six Nations were "an independent people" and "allies"

of the Crown, and not subjects of the Crown.

Here's the full paper:

The Six Nations: A Neglected Aspect of Canadian Legal History

I can stand in my neighbour's yard and declare it my sovereign territory...doesn't make it so...

FTA

Very interesting stuff. No wonder why negotiations take so long.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You make this so easy FTA.....

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state.

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations!

The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it.

O:nen

[FTA Lawyer]

She:kon!

You make this so easy FTA.....

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state.

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations!

The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it.

O:nen

Okay, I'll bite...explain to me how Canada is not a sovereign state.

And while you're at it, explain how the Crown could pledge land to your people via the Royal and Haldimand Proclamations if, as you claim, the Crown never held sovereignty over said land.

Oh, and why don't you address the actual point from my last post...

You said the U.N. would never accuse Six Nations that their attempt to assert sovereignty was unlawful.

I pointed out how both the League of Nations and the U.N. have refused to recognize the Six Nations purported sovereignty.

You responded by telling me that Canada (who, I dare say is generally accepted by the UN to be a soverign nation) has no sovereignty and Six Nations does.

Sounds like you are invoking the compelling "I know you are, but, what am I" method of argument...

FTA

[mister_v]

She:kon!

You make this so easy FTA.....

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state.

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations!

The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it.

O:nen

GOOONNNGGG.

Wrong again Tsi.

The Royal Proclamation was simply the basis for making sure the westward expansion of the colonies happened in an orderly fashion (among other things it dealt with). The Crown considered all lands, including those Indians resided on, to be under its sovereignty:

"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."

You are mistaking the boundaries of the sovereignty of the Crown with the boundaries of the colonies. They are not the same thing. Its a forgivable mistake but now that its been pointed out to you, we shouldn't be reading you make the same mistake again.

Now with the Haldimand Proclamation, and with the more relevant Simcoe Deed, both refer to the Six Nations being under the protection of the Crown (ding ding ding, there's that phrase again, "under our/his Protection"). Being under the protection of the Crown means Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown, and therefore were subjects of the Crown.

But you already know this because its been pointed out to you many times. Your sovereignty only exists in your mind.

quod erat demonstrandum

[Okwaho]

The assertion and defense of sovereignty is a right reinforced and protected by the UN. (Look at Israel's actions as example). The international law is in our favour. Canada refuses to participate in an international forum to arbitrate these issues. Instead they have attempted over the years to keep their abhorrent actions secret and censored from the world's scruitiny.

Currently, for the second time in about 3 years, the UN has condemned Canada's treatment of aboriginals. You can't believe for a moment that they would accuse us that asserting our sovereign right is unlawful........

O:nen

Well, actually........

Additionally, it has been settled law since Calvin's Case, of 1608,

that the Crown's jurisdiction is coterminal with the boundaries of the country.

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state. In the 1920's the

council of hereditary chiefs attempted to obtain international recognition of the

Six Nations purported sovereignty at the League of Nations

and in 1945 before

representatives of the United Nations

. In 1921, legal counsel for a Mrs. Sere,

a member of the Six Nations residing on the Tyendinaga Indian Reserve, argued,

unsuccessfully, that the Six Nations were "an independent people" and "allies"

of the Crown, and not subjects of the Crown.

Here's the full paper:

The Six Nations: A Neglected Aspect of Canadian Legal History

I can stand in my neighbour's yard and declare it my sovereign territory...doesn't make it so...

FTA

The Palestine Jews proclaimed the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 which made Israel became a nation within the territorial boundries (nation) of Palestine!

[Live From China]

OK, I still don't see FTA's questions being answered.

First, why is it that Canada is NOT a sovereign state? And then, if Canada isn't a sovereign state how can it pledge land over which it doesn't hold sovereignty? These are pretty fundamental and important questions.

Also: just because the UN condemns Canada's treatment of its aboriginal peoples doesn't mean that they will automatically indicate that the said claims of these people for sovereignty will automatically be lawful. Seems like they are separate issues.

But before you take issue with my issue, please answer FTA's questions.

[Riverwind]

The Palestine Jews proclaimed the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 which made Israel became a nation within the territorial boundries (nation) of Palestine!

You are mincing words:

In 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

[Okwaho]

The Palestine Jews proclaimed the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 which made Israel became a nation within the territorial boundries (nation) of Palestine!

You are mincing words:

In 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Yuo're missing the point again as usual, they are a nation within a nation as of May, 14, 1948!!!

[jdobbin]

Yuo're missing the point again as usual, they are a nation within a nation as of May, 14, 1948!!!

Anybody can be a nation!!! The Metis are a nation!!! Quebec is a nation!!!

Doesn't mean they are a country unless people recognize it as so!!! Does the U.N. recognize Six Nations as a country?! Does any country recognize Six Nations as a country?!

[Okwaho]

As to your comments...Nationhood and sovereignty are incidents of non-aboriginal law and are inextricably based in the rule of law. You want to rely on the rights and privileges associated with the concept of sovereignty, and you want to rely on the international law governing relations between nations, but only when and where it works in your favour.

Canadian rule of law can find it’s foundations in British Common Law. That law is developed and put into force for its citizens. International law is based on agreements and treaties between two sovereign nations ie: Great Britain and France, Great Britain and the United States, Great Britain/Canada and Rotinonshonni and other First Nations etc. We are merely reminding the law that if they had enforced the rule of law honorably from the beginning there would be no need to witness the actions we must now resort to in order to obtain justice. Our relationship with foreign countries has always been rooted in the Two Row. It has always been the primary agreement us and we have consistently kept our word of honor.

Under international law, in order to maintian sovereignty you must exercise a consistent measure of possession and control over the territory over which you claim said sovereignty. By your own statement you put up an argument that the Six Nations have lost the sovereignty over the Haldimand tract due to the failure to maintain it pursuant to international law.

The Royal Proclamation Act and The Haldimand Proclamation state otherwise! They are in fact edicts of Royal law from the Crown to their subjects/citizens. People can construe their contents to abrogate and derogate as much as they wish but, their contents are unmistakably clear! The land must be ceded to the Crown by us not by legislation, assumption or any other means. My argument in fact is that we have attempted for years to resolve the matter without using force. We’ve never lost control over our lands the so called “rule of law” made it impossible without militant action on our behalf in order to enforce our control. We have always taken the position that we could resolve it peacefully in the hopes that conscience and honor would reproach the deceitful nature of the system. Today we know better and are found in the same circumstances.

This same issue plagues Canada in its holdings in the North because we continue to allow Russian and other nations' encroachment in our waters...we are at real risk of losing our sovereignty to much Northern territory for our failure to exercise it.

There are no Russian territories within the boundaries of North America. Russia does not have claim by way of treaty or other agreements with the Crown which does put them in a rather deferent matter. If there did then I’m sure Canadian courts would have no problem with applying the rule of law were it works in their favor to deal with the matter as they have done so with us for so long. If the North was threatened by Russian squatters I’m sure the indigenous peoples of the region would waste no time in responding to the situation.

Again, you attempt to marshall support as the white knights in shining armour defending your lands lawfully and justly from the unjust actions of the Canadian government...you have forcefully and recklessly occupied the land simply "to prevent its further development."

If you research the history pertaining to the tract you’ll find that the issue has been contested and petitioned against for well over a hundred years. You’ll find that we have been constantly denied appropriate legal remedy. It would seem that the rule of law can be enforced “but only when and where it works in your favour.”

You also mentioned that:

“Under international law, in order to maintian sovereignty you must exercise a consistent measure of possession and control over the territory over which you claim said sovereignty. By your own statement you put up an argument that the Six Nations have lost the sovereignty over the Haldimand tract due to the failure to maintain it pursuant to international law.”

If anyone is under the impression that we lost anything it would have to be contributed through the course of the many years of injustice due to unilateral legislation and absolutely no legal recourse within the very system itself. Conflict of interest is what it amounts to. In the past we have always upheld the peace and good will between us in spite of the recurrent injustice. There are those that say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” If two wrongs don’t make a right than the guilty party shall always remain free to exercise injustice until someone holds them accountable. Isn’t that what your law is based on? Now I ask you, who holds the guilty party accountable when the guilty party is the law itself?

Well, guess what...regardless of how hard you argue that Canadian law doesn't apply to the Six Nations...it DOES apply to Canadians and the Canadian government. Foreign nations have full standing to bring an application in a Canadian court and any civilized and respectful nation would follow the proper process and bring an application for an injunction.

As I have previously mentioned; “If you research the history pertaining to the tract you’ll find that the issue has been contested for over well over a hundred years. You’ll find that we have been constantly denied appropriate legal remedy. It would seem that the rule of law can be enforced “but only when and where it works in your favour.” You’ve mentioned that you’re familiar with the Delgamuukw case. Didn’t the Supreme Court of Canada rule that they have no access to Canadian courts to apply for injunctive relief?

Give me one good reason why the Six Nations did not apply to a Canadian Superior Court or the Federal Court for an injunction forcing all development to cease unless and until the Six Nations land claim was resolved. Instead, your people chose renegade vigilante tactics which command little respect.

As I have already mentioned the issue has been contested for over well over a hundred years and we have been constantly denied appropriate legal remedy. Keep researching, you’ll also find that at one time we were not allowed to have lawyers’ plea our case in court. Again in Delgamuukw didn’t the Supreme Court of Canada rule that they have no access to Canadian courts to apply for injunctive relief?

And before you give me some rhetoric about your hundreds of years of patience wearing thin and the clear inability to expect a Crown servant judge to stop the government or its subjects from doing anything consider the types of injunctions that courts do give in these kinds of international disputes. The most recent I can think of is a lowly district judge in Montana putting the brakes on the entire multi-billion dollar beef trade between the U.S. and Canada contrary to the wishes and plans of both federal governments of both nations because he felt it was the proper legal action in the circumstances.

Remember, I actually am of the view that the Six Nations claim is likely meritorious...but I reiterate...the proper legal process should be followed and the occupation should end. Then the ongoing negotiations can resume and the Six Nations might be able to regain some credibility with Canadians and the international community at large as to the just position they claim to advance.

FTA

My reply to you in regards to this question has been answered throughout my entire response. If as you say “you are actually of the view that the Six Nations claim is likely”, then I am sure that you know what I have stated is true. The occupation of the land itself poses no threat whatsoever to the good people of Caledonia. We do not leave the site to go into Caledonia to wreak havoc on its citizens. Much of the trouble ensues when some of the residents "fearing for their safety" gather near the site purely for the purpose of inciting hostility. Of course it’s always the natives that initiate everything. In short the answer to your recurring question is that which you already know, we cannot obtain any proper legal remedy in a domestic court while judges deliberate amidst of a conflict of interest.

[Riverwind]

If anyone is under the impression that we lost anything it would have to be contributed through the course of the many years of injustice due to unilateral legislation and absolutely no legal recourse within the very system itself. Conflict of interest is what it amounts to. In the past we have always upheld the peace and good will between us in spite of the recurrent injustice. There are those that say “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

The "use it or lose it" provision under international law does not make any provisions for fair dealings. Ultimately, Six Nations can never have sovereignty over any land if the people living in the land do not recognize their soveriegnty. Six Nations could try to use violance to force those 500,000 non-natives to accept the sovereignty of Six Nations, however, I doubt such a move would be successful in the end. That is why Canada is prepared to give up its sovereignty over Quebec if that is the clearly expressed will of the people living in Quebec.

[Okwaho]

She:kon!

You make this so easy FTA.....

There cannot be a sovereign state within a sovereign state.

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations!

The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it.

O:nen

GOOONNNGGG.

Wrong again Tsi.

The Royal Proclamation was simply the basis for making sure the westward expansion of the colonies happened in an orderly fashion (among other things it dealt with). The Crown considered all lands, including those Indians resided on, to be under its sovereignty:

"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."

You are mistaking the boundaries of the sovereignty of the Crown with the boundaries of the colonies. They are not the same thing. Its a forgivable mistake but now that its been pointed out to you, we shouldn't be reading you make the same mistake again.

Now with the Haldimand Proclamation, and with the more relevant Simcoe Deed, both refer to the Six Nations being under the protection of the Crown (ding ding ding, there's that phrase again, "under our/his Protection"). Being under the protection of the Crown means Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown, and therefore were subjects of the Crown.

But you already know this because its been pointed out to you many times. Your sovereignty only exists in your mind.

quod erat demonstrandum

You better find someone qualified to read it properly for you! It was the Royal Proclamation in fact that started the American Revolutionary War because it outright forbade western expansion period!!!

[mister_v]

You better find someone qualified to read it properly for you! It was the Royal Proclamation in fact that started the American Revolutionary War because it outright forbade western expansion period!!!

The Proclamation indicated that expansion of the colonies was only to occur through land purchases by Crown officials of land ceded by the Indians. Hence my reference to orderly expansion. The Proclamation was in no way a permanent boundary.

I have a feeling you Six Nations fanatics on these boards never actually read the documents in question. You must be learning about them from that 'oral tradition', taking the Clan Mothers' word at face value like obedient little drones.

[Riverwind]

I have a feeling you Six Nations fanatics on these boards never actually read the documents in question. You must be learning about them from that 'oral tradition', taking the Clan Mothers' word at face value like obedient little drones.

Is there a copy of these docs available online? I tried looking for the text of the original Haldimand proclaimation and all I could find was 1000s of claims about what is said in the document with no link to the document itself.

[skyclad]

The govt case against the natives in regard to the Haldimand Tract is found on

www.citizensofcaledonia.ca

, first item on the page I believe, it is in PDF and has everything you would ever want to kanow about. Including signed documents by the chiefs at that time.

[mister_v]

Is there a copy of these docs available online? I tried looking for the text of the original Haldimand proclaimation and all I could find was 1000s of claims about what is said in the document with no link to the document itself.

It doesn't look like that citizensofcaledonia.ca website links to the actual Haldimand Proclamation. canadiana.org has a complete set of Indian land surrenders and, for convenience, citizensofcaledonia.ca links to some that are relevant to today's Six Nations shenanigans. The links can be found here. Document #9 is especially interesting since it covers the surrender of the land those wind turbines near Shelburne, Ontario are built upon. A thorough browsing of the land surrenders on canadiana.org could uncover more pertaining to the Six Nations.

The text of the Proclamation, along with the Simcoe Deed can be found here (see Appendix "B" at the bottom of the page).

What I'd really love to find is a map showing the various blocks of the Haldimand Tract that are covered in the land surrenders and sales (Joseph Brant carved up the Tract into blocks and sold them off).

[skyclad]

I'd like see a map as well, J. Brant friend, Augustus Jones did all the survying for Brant. Jones was part native so both sides trusted him.

Jones also did the Toronto/Mississauga purchase survey

might try that

[g_bambino]

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations!

The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it.

It seems obvious that you believe Canada and the Crown to be two separate entities when they patently are not. Canadian law creates the Canadian Crown, and all executive authority of the country has been vested in it. Thus, the Crown's sovereignty is Canada's sovereignty, the laws of the Crown are Canada's laws; by all accepted logic the Crown is Canada, and Canada is the Crown.

So, you're then completely self contradictory when you claim that the Crown recognizes First Nations' sovereignty, but Canada does not. The rights ascribed to Natives within the Constitution were outlined in Proclamations and laws given their authority by the ancestors of the current Queen of Canada, on the advice of their governments, once British, now Canadian. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms you always turn to became law with the signature of the current Queen of Canada, by and on the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister. So, if it's Canadian constitutional law you recognize as giving First Nations their rights, then it is the First Nations who exist within the sovereign state of Canada, and not the other way around.

[Simple One]

There is the 1 trillion dollar amount stated on these threads.

This will economically ruin Canada - Is that really what the Six Nations & Aboriginals want? What would that accomplish?

[Okwaho]

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations!

The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it.

It seems obvious that you believe Canada and the Crown to be two separate entities when they patently are not. Canadian law creates the Canadian Crown, and all executive authority of the country has been vested in it. Thus, the Crown's sovereignty is Canada's sovereignty, the laws of the Crown are Canada's laws; by all accepted logic the Crown is Canada, and Canada is the Crown.

So, you're then completely self contradictory when you claim that the Crown recognizes First Nations' sovereignty, but Canada does not. The rights ascribed to Natives within the Constitution were outlined in Proclamations and laws given their authority by the ancestors of the current Queen of Canada, on the advice of their governments, once British, now Canadian. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms you always turn to became law with the signature of the current Queen of Canada, by and on the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister. So, if it's Canadian constitutional law you recognize as giving First Nations their rights, then it is the First Nations who exist within the sovereign state of Canada, and not the other way around.

Not when you have a Governor General who is the Crown's representative in Canada!

Your Constitution in regards to our agreements is a reminder to Canadians that they exist. Trust me...we don't need to be reminded!

[Okwaho]

I'd like see a map as well, J. Brant friend, Augustus Jones did all the survying for Brant. Jones was part native so both sides trusted him.

Jones also did the Toronto/Mississauga purchase survey

might try that

You do realize how foolish you look about now don't you?

[g_bambino]

It seems obvious that you believe Canada and the Crown to be two separate entities when they patently are not. Canadian law creates the Canadian Crown, and all executive authority of the country has been vested in it. Thus, the Crown's sovereignty is Canada's sovereignty, the laws of the Crown are Canada's laws; by all accepted logic the Crown is Canada, and Canada is the Crown.

So, you're then completely self contradictory when you claim that the Crown recognizes First Nations' sovereignty, but Canada does not. The rights ascribed to Natives within the Constitution were outlined in Proclamations and laws given their authority by the ancestors of the current Queen of Canada, on the advice of their governments, once British, now Canadian. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms you always turn to became law with the signature of the current Queen of Canada, by and on the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister. So, if it's Canadian constitutional law you recognize as giving First Nations their rights, then it is the First Nations who exist within the sovereign state of Canada, and not the other way around.

Not when you have a Governor General who is the Crown's representative in Canada!

Your Constitution in regards to our agreements is a reminder to Canadians that they exist. Trust me...we don't need to be reminded!

Sorry, what? The Governor General is the representative of the Queen of Canada. How does the presence of a person appointed by the Sovereign to represent her in Canada in her absence affect Canadian sovereignty?

The treaties and royal proclamations are laws, not reminders. Natives are bound by these laws as much as non-natives are, meaning that both non-natives and natives are subjects of the Canadian Crown. Being subject to the Crown and it's laws means that Canada is the sovereign state, and First Nations exist within it.

Perhaps you all need to come to grips with the fact that Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and that you live under her laws, not that she is Queen of Six Nations and all "Canadians" live under her laws.