Aboriginals/First Nations in Canada

[Okwaho]

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.

Why do you people continue to reinforce my point about the Crown? The treaties are international laws and recognized and affirmed to Her Subjects in Canadas Contitution. Proclamations are law and the highest law of the Crown. They are edicts straight from the mouth of the King/Queen! She is NOT Queen of Six Nations we are Her allies. There is a major difference between an ally and a subject!

[Riverwind]

Why do you people continue to reinforce my point about the Crown?

You are not making any point. The word "Crown" in Canada today means the "Sovereign Country of Canada". If someone has a legally binding agreement with the "Crown" they have an agreement with "Government of Canada". If some wishes to enforce that agreement they must use the Canadian courts and must submit to the rules defined by the Canadian constitution. There is no other higher authority. When Canada and the US signed NAFTA they both agreed to pass laws in their countries that would allow the other country to seek enforcement of the terms of the deal. If the US breaks the terms of NAFTA then Canada must use the US courts and submit to the terms of the US constitution if it wants to compel the US to live up to the terms of the treaty. In addition, Canada must accept that US politicians control the court system and can change the rules to ensure that the courts produce an outcome that US politicians are happy with.

[mister_v]

Why do you people continue to reinforce my point about the Crown? The treaties are international laws and recognized and affirmed to Her Subjects in Canadas Contitution. Proclamations are law and the highest law of the Crown. They are edicts straight from the mouth of the King/Queen! She is NOT Queen of Six Nations we are Her allies. There is a major difference between an ally and a subject!

Canadian courts have reached the conclusion that the Six Nations on the Grand River are subjects of the Crown.

[deirdrie]

the natives have used the people of caledonia as pawns and they wonder why the people of caledonia is upset with them duh

[Okwaho]

Why do you people continue to reinforce my point about the Crown?

You are not making any point. The word "Crown" in Canada today means the "Sovereign Country of Canada". If someone has a legally binding agreement with the "Crown" they have an agreement with "Government of Canada". If some wishes to enforce that agreement they must use the Canadian courts and must submit to the rules defined by the Canadian constitution. There is no other higher authority. When Canada and the US signed NAFTA they both agreed to pass laws in their countries that would allow the other country to seek enforcement of the terms of the deal. If the US breaks the terms of NAFTA then Canada must use the US courts and submit to the terms of the US constitution if it wants to compel the US to live up to the terms of the treaty. In addition, Canada must accept that US politicians control the court system and can change the rules to ensure that the courts produce an outcome that US politicians are happy with.

You had best read your constitution again...everything in it is by way of or in right of Her Mejesty! The same goes with your legal system. It is you vs Her Majesty/The Queen/Regina not Canada or The People of Canada!

[Okwaho]

Why do you people continue to reinforce my point about the Crown? The treaties are international laws and recognized and affirmed to Her Subjects in Canadas Contitution. Proclamations are law and the highest law of the Crown. They are edicts straight from the mouth of the King/Queen! She is NOT Queen of Six Nations we are Her allies. There is a major difference between an ally and a subject!

Canadian courts have reached the conclusion that the Six Nations on the Grand River are subjects of the Crown.

First of all the courts have never reached that conclusion and secondly, they don't have the jurisdiction to reach such a conclusion!

[Okwaho]

the natives have used the people of caledonia as pawns and they wonder why the people of caledonia is upset with them duh

"they wonder why the people of caledonia is upset with them" we do? Your own government is using you as pawns by not coming clean with everyone! We know that some of the people of Caledonia are upset with us but that's due their ignorance.

[mister_v]

First of all the courts have never reached that conclusion and secondly, they don't have the jurisdiction to reach such a conclusion!

Sorry, they have. And they do have the jurisdiction. Case closed.

[g_bambino]

You had best read your constitution again...everything in it is by way of or in right of Her Mejesty! The same goes with your legal system. It is you vs Her Majesty/The Queen/Regina not Canada or The People of Canada!

If you take a little time to read the "Constitution Act 1867" you'll see that section III.9. states:

The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen

That means that the Queen is the government of Canada. "Crown", "Queen", "Her Majesty", "Regina" are all, in legal terms, synonyms for "Canada." So, being subjects of the Crown, which you are, makes you subject to the laws of the Canadian Crown, or, in other words, to the laws of Canada.

The treaties and royal proclamations aren't simple paperwork that floats unanchored in a non-national vacuum. They are laws of Canada, and First Nations are bound by them as much as non-Natives are. So, if Six Nations are under the sovereignty of the Crown then they fall within the Crown's jurisdiction; an area, in geographical terms, which has a name: Canada. Hence, Canadian courts, overseen by judges who are appointed by the Crown to interperet and enforce its laws, have the absolute auhtority to rule on matters concerning First Nations.

[Okwaho]

You had best read your constitution again...everything in it is by way of or in right of Her Mejesty! The same goes with your legal system. It is you vs Her Majesty/The Queen/Regina not Canada or The People of Canada!

If you take a little time to read the "Constitution Act 1867" you'll see that section III.9. states:

The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen

That means that the Queen is the government of Canada. "Crown", "Queen", "Her Majesty", "Regina" are all, in legal terms, synonyms for "Canada." So, being subjects of the Crown, which you are, makes you subject to the laws of the Canadian Crown, or, in other words, to the laws of Canada.

The treaties and royal proclamations aren't simple paperwork that floats unanchored in a non-national vacuum. They are laws of Canada, and First Nations are bound by them as much as non-Natives are. So, if Six Nations are under the sovereignty of the Crown then they fall within the Crown's jurisdiction; an area, in geographical terms, which has a name: Canada. Hence, Canadian courts, overseen by judges who are appointed by the Crown to interperet and enforce its laws, have the absolute auhtority to rule on matters concerning First Nations.

You can bend it, you can twist it, you can deny it, you can be gullible all you like but you can't change the facts.

[Okwaho]

First of all the courts have never reached that conclusion and secondly, they don't have the jurisdiction to reach such a conclusion!

Sorry, they have. And they do have the jurisdiction. Case closed.

You have revealed over and over the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Case closed? Far from it. If it were I doubt highly that your government would be seeking dialogue with us and Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant wouldn't be appealing Judge Marshall's foolhearty ruling! Stay tuned!!!

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Treaties are NOT made with the citizens of a country. They are made only on a nation to nation basis.

Proclamations of the Crown are statements of fact. In the case of the the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation they are a statement made to the citizens that no one is to encroach on the lands as they are beyond the control of the Crown. They merely state for the benefit of the citizens that the borders are their limits and qould be no different than stating the obvious that the US border is off-limits to British settlement.

Anyone that can prove that the Haudensaunee Confederacy ever capitulated, or ever entered into an agreement that gave up their sovereignty, or were ever conquered by British forces will have scored a point.

Since Canada is nothing more than a subject of the Crown (and more importantly did not have any authority when the proclamations were made) then a statement by a subject has no value in this discussion. The Crown's statement was directed towards its subjects - its citizens - and was further entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a continuation of that statement. The Haldimand Tract is off-limits to settlement and so any settlement that did occur without our permission is illegal.

I would furhter implicate that given the Haldimand Tract was off-limits to British (and Canadians) that they no longer could hold themselves as citizens while living on Confederacy territory. While the US may recognize dual citizenship, and work visas, we do not. And so by right of territory anyone living on the tract are subject to the laws of the Confederacy.

O:nen

[Temagami Scourge]

Ok...Now this is damn funny.....

Letters are nothing more than native propaganda

By Bryan Thompson, Caledonia

The Hamilton Spectator

(Aug 18, 2006)

Re: Caledonia

After six months of illegal occupation of Douglas Creek Estates by natives, we are still subjected to Indian propaganda disguised as .

Each letter has a common thread; the people of Caledonia are racists who started the whole thing and the land belongs to the natives.

They conveniently forget that the natives blocked the main street, started a tire fire and burned down a bridge.

Their selective memory also excludes the fact that an elderly couple was attacked in a parking lot and two cameramen assaulted while the OPP watched.

The constant harassment of citizens who live adjacent to the occupied land is also never mentioned in any of these letters.

With regard to the land claim -- it is bogus. The land was sold over 160 years ago and there is documentation to prove it.

The only question is whether the natives received all the money owed to them.

The rallies at the entrance of the occupied land are nothing more than the gathering of angry citizens who are fed up with thugs who throw rocks at their homes at night and parade around displaying a defaced Canadian flag.

These are the facts and The Spectator would do well to print letters that oppose the typical native point of view.

I couldn't stop laughing at this letter. In essence, it is a plea for people to ignore whatever Natives are saying, and it clearly shows that the impact Native folks have had in their writing on the Caledonia dispute has been very effective, whether it is a letter to the Editor, or on online forums everywhere.

Secondly, the letter is typical of the type of "selective facts" that has been driving Aboriginal people from across Canada to undertake letter-writing and posting on forums. For example, we hear that Natives "attacked" elderly people, but without the proviso that the same "elderly" people actually stopped and began purposefully provoking protestors with racial epithets, but the writer does not point out that non-Natives have taken to mocking the clanmothers and Chiefs (people who have been forthcoming with information to their own people in a manner that is no where near emulated by the mainstream government and the people they supposedly represent!) online and in the print media. No one mentions the rock-throwing on a nightly basis by young Caledonian drunks, and yet there are know a number of videos taken by protestors that clearly show the young drunks noy only hurling rocks, but also hurling invective. We have yet to see visual evidence of the Natives purposefully "terrorizing" their neighbours(which comes as a surprise since the Caledonians are now awash in money, and could likely afford a digital video cam that has infra-red capabilities!)

The bottom line is that the letter illustrates the fact that Aboriginal people are winning the war of words on the Caledonia dispute, so much so that Caledonians are actually asking the mainstream media to emphasize non-Aboriginal opinion!

[g_bambino]

You had best read your constitution again...everything in it is by way of or in right of Her Mejesty! The same goes with your legal system. It is you vs Her Majesty/The Queen/Regina not Canada or The People of Canada!

If you take a little time to read the "Constitution Act 1867" you'll see that section III.9. states:

The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen

That means that the Queen is the government of Canada. "Crown", "Queen", "Her Majesty", "Regina" are all, in legal terms, synonyms for "Canada." So, being subjects of the Crown, which you are, makes you subject to the laws of the Canadian Crown, or, in other words, to the laws of Canada.

The treaties and royal proclamations aren't simple paperwork that floats unanchored in a non-national vacuum. They are laws of Canada, and First Nations are bound by them as much as non-Natives are. So, if Six Nations are under the sovereignty of the Crown then they fall within the Crown's jurisdiction; an area, in geographical terms, which has a name: Canada. Hence, Canadian courts, overseen by judges who are appointed by the Crown to interperet and enforce its laws, have the absolute auhtority to rule on matters concerning First Nations.

You can bend it, you can twist it, you can deny it, you can be gullible all you like but you can't change the facts.

Damn right you can't change the facts. Perhaps you should adhere to what it is you preach.

[g_bambino]

She:kon!

Treaties are NOT made with the citizens of a country. They are made only on a nation to nation basis.

Proclamations of the Crown are statements of fact. In the case of the the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation they are a statement made to the citizens that no one is to encroach on the lands as they are beyond the control of the Crown. They merely state for the benefit of the citizens that the borders are their limits and qould be no different than stating the obvious that the US border is off-limits to British settlement.

Anyone that can prove that the Haudensaunee Confederacy ever capitulated, or ever entered into an agreement that gave up their sovereignty, or were ever conquered by British forces will have scored a point.

Since Canada is nothing more than a subject of the Crown (and more importantly did not have any authority when the proclamations were made) then a statement by a subject has no value in this discussion. The Crown's statement was directed towards its subjects - its citizens - and was further entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a continuation of that statement. The Haldimand Tract is off-limits to settlement and so any settlement that did occur without our permission is illegal.

I would furhter implicate that given the Haldimand Tract was off-limits to British (and Canadians) that they no longer could hold themselves as citizens while living on Confederacy territory. While the US may recognize dual citizenship, and work visas, we do not. And so by right of territory anyone living on the tract are subject to the laws of the Confederacy.

O:nen

The treaties are made with the person the citizens have chosen to represent them - in Canada's case, that's the Queen. The Queen is the personal embodiment of the State (holding all of its authority), and so, through her, all treaties are made with the citizens of Canada.

I've no doubt that the treaties and royal proclamations lay out limits on where non-Native Canadians can expand their inhabited territory, but the lands retained specifically for First Nations are as much a part of the jurisdiction of the Crown as the rest of the country is. If that was not the case you would be a leaderless, governmentless, lawless people, recognized as a sovereign state by no nation on earth. But, of course, that is not the case. First Nations are subjects of the Crown, must bear passports issued by the Queen of Canada when they travel abroad, must abide by the laws of the Crown, and face the Queen's justices in her courts when they break said laws, even on the reserve. Yes, certain laws of Canada (the treaties, royal procalamations, Indian Act, etc.) spell out what special rights First Nations are entitled to, define their territory, and even allow them a certain level of self-government. But, those laws are still Canadian, enforcable by Canadian courts, and ultimately Native and non-Native Canadians exist under the same governing authority - the Crown of Canada.

That Crown has existed in continuity from the very first European settlers to begin their government here, and who made treaties with the leaders of the aborigional populations. So, those proclamations and treaties are still perfectly valid, despite the point that they are now between First Nations and the distinct Canadian Crown. However, as the Queen (or her vice-regal rep.) is bound by constitutional convention to almost always follow the advice of her ministers, any act made by the Crown will be on the recommendation of members of the Canadian Cabinet (the upper part of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada). This applies as much to Native affairs as anything else (and is why there is a Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs), meaning that First Nations within Canada are indeed under the authority of the Canadian government, further proving that though they are treated specially, they are not a sovereign state.

[Okwaho]

She:kon!

Treaties are NOT made with the citizens of a country. They are made only on a nation to nation basis.

Proclamations of the Crown are statements of fact. In the case of the the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation they are a statement made to the citizens that no one is to encroach on the lands as they are beyond the control of the Crown. They merely state for the benefit of the citizens that the borders are their limits and qould be no different than stating the obvious that the US border is off-limits to British settlement.

Anyone that can prove that the Haudensaunee Confederacy ever capitulated, or ever entered into an agreement that gave up their sovereignty, or were ever conquered by British forces will have scored a point.

Since Canada is nothing more than a subject of the Crown (and more importantly did not have any authority when the proclamations were made) then a statement by a subject has no value in this discussion. The Crown's statement was directed towards its subjects - its citizens - and was further entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a continuation of that statement. The Haldimand Tract is off-limits to settlement and so any settlement that did occur without our permission is illegal.

I would furhter implicate that given the Haldimand Tract was off-limits to British (and Canadians) that they no longer could hold themselves as citizens while living on Confederacy territory. While the US may recognize dual citizenship, and work visas, we do not. And so by right of territory anyone living on the tract are subject to the laws of the Confederacy.

O:nen

The treaties are made with the person the citizens have chosen to represent them - in Canada's case, that's the Queen. The Queen is the personal embodiment of the State (holding all of its authority), and so, through her, all treaties are made with the citizens of Canada.

I've no doubt that the treaties and royal proclamations lay out limits on where non-Native Canadians can expand their inhabited territory, but the lands retained specifically for First Nations are as much a part of the jurisdiction of the Crown as the rest of the country is. If that was not the case you would be a leaderless, governmentless, lawless people, recognized as a sovereign state by no nation on earth. But, of course, that is not the case. First Nations are subjects of the Crown, must bear passports issued by the Queen of Canada when they travel abroad, must abide by the laws of the Crown, and face the Queen's justices in her courts when they break said laws, even on the reserve. Yes, certain laws of Canada (the treaties, royal procalamations, Indian Act, etc.) spell out what special rights First Nations are entitled to, define their territory, and even allow them a certain level of self-government. But, those laws are still Canadian, enforcable by Canadian courts, and ultimately Native and non-Native Canadians exist under the same governing authority - the Crown of Canada.

That Crown has existed in continuity from the very first European settlers to begin their government here, and who made treaties with the leaders of the aborigional populations. So, those proclamations and treaties are still perfectly valid, despite the point that they are now between First Nations and the distinct Canadian Crown. However, as the Queen (or her vice-regal rep.) is bound by constitutional convention to almost always follow the advice of her ministers, any act made by the Crown will be on the recommendation of members of the Canadian Cabinet (the upper part of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada). This applies as much to Native affairs as anything else (and is why there is a Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs), meaning that First Nations within Canada are indeed under the authority of the Canadian government, further proving that though they are treated specially, they are not a sovereign state.

Citizens and subjects entering into treaties with their own government? What a joke!!!

Nations make treaties with Nations! We are still sovereign as per the original agreements in which the British/Crown/Canada and all others settled in North America. You can debate the issue all you like but you're not a historian or a legal expert so you can't possibly understand the magnitude of the dilemma your governemnt is faced with. You obviously have no comprehension as to the vast amounts of evidence we have in our favor.

[Okwaho]

Damn right you can't change the facts. Perhaps you should adhere to what it is you preach.

That is exactly what we are doing and holding your government accountable to doing the same!

[Riverwind]

Nations make treaties with Nations!

I have bad news for you: treaties between nations are not legally binding documents since there is no court with the authority to force either party to adher to the terms of the document. This means that every treaty between nations is subject to renegotiation whenever one party decides that it is not happy with the terms. So if Six Nations is really a sovereign state that signed a treaty with Canada then Canada is free to annex all lands in the Haldimand tract without compensation. The Americans took control of the Oregon territory from the British by simply declaring that they controlled the lands. The British had no choice but to start a war with the Americans to prove them wrong or negotiate the new international border.

However, if you want to argue that Canadian law requires Canada to honour the treaty then you are acknowledging that Canadian law is supreme and the Canadian courts have jurisdiction.

Personally, this problem would be a lot easier to deal with is Six Nations really was a separate sovereign state. If it was the case then Canada gov't could tell Six Nations to FOAD - this is what the US says to Canada whenever Canada asks the US to live up treaty obligations that are politically inconvenient for US politicians (i.e. free trade in lumber).

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Oops!

First Nations are subjects of the Crown, must bear passports issued by the Queen of Canada

We have our own passports issued by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Only sovereign nations have their passports recognized by 36 countries.

O:nen

[Hydraboss]

Nations make treaties with Nations!

I have bad news for you: treaties between nations are not legally binding documents since there is no court with the authority to force either party to adher to the terms of the document. This means that every treaty between nations is subject to renegotiation whenever one party decides that it is not happy with the terms. So if Six Nations is really a sovereign state that signed a treaty with Canada then Canada is free to annex all lands in the Haldimand tract without compensation. The Americans took control of the Oregon territory from the British by simply declaring that they controlled the lands. The British had no choice but to start a war with the Americans to prove them wrong or negotiate the new international border.

However, if you want to argue that Canadian law requires Canada to honour the treaty then you are acknowledging that Canadian law is supreme and the Canadian courts have jurisdiction.

Personally, this problem would be a lot easier to deal with is Six Nations really was a separate sovereign state. If it was the case then Canada gov't could tell Six Nations to FOAD - this is what the US says to Canada whenever Canada asks the US to live up treaty obligations that are politically inconvenient for US politicians (i.e. free trade in lumber).

What's the matter Tsi? Don't want to tackle this one?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon! Riverspin,

I have worse news for you. Treaties are agreements between nations formed out of good will and respect. Should one nation decide unilaterally to ignore the terms of the treaty then the penalties specifed in it will come in to effect. If there are no penalties then in the case of land treaties we have every right to take back the land and dispose of it in anyway we choose. Unilaterally ignoring the terms doesn't mean that you can still use the land AND ignore the terms. You lost.

Thanks for supporting our cause by your understanding.

O:nen

[Hydraboss]

...we have every right to take back the land...

Really? Come and get it.

[Riverwind]

If there are no penalties then in the case of land treaties we have every right to take back the land and dispose of it in anyway we choose.

In the case of land treaties the only way to take the land back is to start a war and win. That is why the British gave the Americans the Oregon territory even though the British had the legal claim to the land. Six Nations has already lost the land. As an insignificant minority in a heavily populated region, Six Nations has no hope of winning any war. The only leverage that Six Nations has is the Canadian legal system which might grant Six Nations some compensation for lands lost, however, the using the Canadian legal system to get redress simply proves that Six Nations is subject to Canadian law.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

In the case of land treaties the only way to take the land back is to start a war and win.

Wrong again.

Oka. Ipperwash. Caledonia. All are successful reclamations. Stay tuned....same bat channel....more to come......

Sure we end up negotiating but we hold the upper hand.

O:nen

[Hydraboss]

You hold nothing.

Keep dreaming about getting "your" land back. And I'll keep dreaming about getting that $15 back that that guy borrowed in 1983. After all, I hold the upper hand.