Aboriginals/First Nations in Canada

[jdobbin]

One of the greatest challenges for the Harper government will be to come up with an approach that helps First Nations in Canada. All of the provincial premiers have pushed the government to re-affirm support the previous government's program. I imagine we'll see the Conservative approach in the months ahead.

I don't know all the issues out there in regards to the relatonship but we know there needs to be work on the part of Canadians and the First Nations communties to help aborginals become a part of Canada. I'd like to hear from other people out there about what they see the issues as being and offering *productive* solutions.

This is what John Ibbitson has said what Native young people should do.

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/...ction=Education

I think it might be a bit harsh. What do others think? Is it possible for youth to do well without having to go all the way to Toronto?

[jdobbin]

I think this is just another attempt to get them off the land so Canada can keep it! Equivalent funding for reserve schools would be a better solution. :angry:

The data that I crunched last year showed that while the rates of education completion are lower, they are increasing by leaps and bounds in recent years. Also, they have high rates of returning to education as adults. So the snapshot may appear bleak but the movie shows a different picture.

To me this suggestion just sounds like more of the same colonial patronization they've had from Canada for 200 years. They really do not care what you think the solutions to the 'Indian problem' are ... they have their own ideas: They want the land we took from them and their sovereignty, and they will take it from there.

Why on earth would they listen to Canada that has only oppressed them.

You people just don't get it!

Some of the reserve land is fairly isolated. Even if all the population was involved in subsistence trades like hunting and fishing, the populations are so much higher now that it would not sustain everyone. Nor is an attractive prospect for everyone who lives on a reserve.

Reserves already send their youth to places like Winnipeg for university. While I believe that pirmary and secondary schools should be improved on reserves, it nearly impossible to place quality post secondary schools in low population areas *anywhere* in Canada. The need for doctors and nurse and social workers means more native youths leaving for Winnipeg, Toronto and the like. Unfortunately, not all want to return to reserves. There are now many urban Natives in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. It is simply a reflection of the attraction that urban areas have had for almost all cultures world-wide.

There are many Natives working with Non-Natives. In Manitoba, it is a given that Native population will grow and businesses and social development groups and looking at ways to find jobs and homes and a sense of cooperation. Land claims are only a part of the solution to problems.

One Native business company in Manitoba is doing amazing things.

http://www.tcig.biz/site/profiles/main.php

[Okwaho]

One of the greatest challenges for the Harper government will be to come up with an approach that helps First Nations in Canada. All of the provincial premiers have pushed the government to re-affirm support the previous government's program. I imagine we'll see the Conservative approach in the months ahead.

I don't know all the issues out there in regards to the relatonship but we know there needs to be work on the part of Canadians and the First Nations communties to help aborginals become a part of Canada. I'd like to hear from other people out there about what they see the issues as being and offering *productive* solutions.

This is what John Ibbitson has said what Native young people should do.

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/...ction=Education

I think it might be a bit harsh. What do others think? Is it possible for youth to do well without having to go all the way to Toronto?

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

[jdobbin]

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

Many First Nations and other aboriginals are very much part of Canada. I don't know that there is a united front on this at all. Does the Assembly of First Nations make the agument that they are not part of Canada?

Do you have productive solutions to offer to today's problems?

[Okwaho]

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

Many First Nations and other aboriginals are very much part of Canada. I don't know that there is a united front on this at all. Does the Assembly of First Nations make the agument that they are not part of Canada?

Do you have productive solutions to offer to today's problems?

The AFN and "Band Council" are a product of the Indian Act. The Indian Act was implemented by the Canadian government in an atempt to destroy our Traditional form of government and take land. At Six Nations it was imposed on us in 1924 by the RCMP at gunpoint. That under the criminal code and international law constitutes an act of genocide. I think alot of non-native misunderstanding of us is due to the fact they are unaware of this and similar issues.

The only solution to the problems of today is for the government to be honest and comply with their original agreements instead of trying to use smoke and mirror tactics in an attempt to gain more.

[jdobbin]

The AFN and "Band Council" are a product of the Indian Act. The Indian Act was implemented by the Canadian government in an atempt to destroy our Traditional form of government and take land. At Six Nations it was imposed on us in 1924 by the RCMP at gunpoint. That under the criminal code and international law constitutes an act of genocide. I think alot of non-native misunderstanding of us is due to the fact they are unaware of this and similar issues.

The only solution to the problems of today is for the government to be honest and comply with their original agreements instead of trying to use smoke and mirror tactics in an attempt to gain more.

Is there a national group that is spokeman for non-AFN believers? If Canadians don't know what the message is, it is hard to for them to understand.

And if the message is the 500,000 people have to leave the land in question, how is that message sold?

We sometimes hear that *all* the land is claimed and non-Natives should be on the next boats back to Africa, Asia and Europe. That doesn't sound like a scenario that could be plausible for the simple fact that most nations would not put up with 35 million refugees.

[Riverwind]

That under the criminal code and international law constitutes an act of genocide.

Did the RCMP walk in and shoot everyone in sight? If they didn't then the term genocide does not apply. Using it simply obsurs the real issues (BTW - genocide is not a specific offence in the criminal code of Canada - prove it if you disagree).

The only solution to the problems of today is for the government to be honest and comply with their original agreements instead of trying to use smoke and mirror tactics in an attempt to gain more.

What if the orginal agreements are simply too expensive for the country to pay? Tsi tosses around 1.5 trillion as a figure demanded by _one_ band out of 600 in the country. That is more than the annual GDP of Canada and is simply not affordable.

If you want a workable solution then you are going to have to forget about the agreements and think about what you really need to ensure your culture and society prospers in the future. Asking that the entire GDP of a country with 30 million people be given to a group of 22,000 people is nothing more than shameless greed.

[jdobbin]

Haudenosaunee Six Nations are speaking for themselves and they are the ones in critical negotiations. There is not one Canadian voice for Indigenous people, except the government voice of the AFN that does not seem to represent the interests of the majority of the people. They see Band Councils-AFN as selling them out again, taking paltry money for land, in collusion with the Canadian government of which they are a part.

The government of Canada is responsible for the messaging of their decisions to us.

I think their position is ... this is our right. You have abused us, tried to destroy us.

How you deal with your problems is not our problem... but, as Tsi said ... if our government abandons us by failing to negotiate reasonably ... they are kind and peaceful and competent people and will provide services for us ... cheaper.

I was talking about councils in general. I think there are a lot of Aboriginal people who believe in the councils if elections are anything to guage it by.

I have no idea about Six Nations although to an outsider, it looks like a lot of disagreement when you see a lot of firings and mixed messages from the leadersip.

[Okwaho]

Did the RCMP walk in and shoot everyone in sight? If they didn't then the term genocide does not apply. Using it simply obsurs the real issues (BTW - genocide is not a specific offence in the criminal code of Canada - prove it if you disagree).

You don't have to kill members of a group to constitute genocide! It is in the criminal code link provided!

By removing our traditional government and installing the Band Council system they comitted an act genocide under 318. (1) (! Here's the link http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/267514.html

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of “identifiable group”

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

What if the orginal agreements are simply too expensive for the country to pay? Tsi tosses around 1.5 trillion as a figure demanded by _one_ band out of 600 in the country. That is more than the annual GDP of Canada and is simply not affordable.

That's your governments problem not ours! If they can't pay it then maybe they'll just have to give us some uninhabited land in lieu.

If you want a workable solution then you are going to have to forget about the agreements and think about what you really need to ensure your culture and society prospers in the future. Asking that the entire GDP of a country with 30 million people be given to a group of 22,000 people is nothing more than shameless greed.

They made the agreements their Constitution enfoces them. They need to ante up and stop playing games. We already have our culture in a position to prosper in the future. Asking us to simply forget about that which rightfully belongs to us and is constantly being taken by people that have more than enough land (than they need and use themselves) is extremely nothing more than shameless greed!!!

[Riverwind]

You don't have to kill members of a group to constitute genocide!

Someone who walks into a bank with a gun and threatens to kill the everyone of they do not get money is not guilty of genocide even if everyone in the bank happenes to be of the same ethnic group. Furthermore, imposing a different form of governance on a group does not constitute 'physical destruction of a group'. You claims genocide are baseless and you know it.

They made the agreements their Constitution enfoces them. They need to ante up and stop playing games. We already have our culture in a position to prosper in the future. Asking us to simply forget about that which rightfully belongs to us and is constantly being taken by people that have more than enough land (than they need and use themselves) is extremely nothing more than shameless greed!!!

ROFL - let's see you just admit that you don't need the land to ensure the survival of your people yet you still demand it not matter how unfair or unreasonable that should be. Your statements simply demonstrate that this is not really about rights - it is about _your_ pathetic greed.

One simple question for you: Canada cannot afford to pay anything close to what you are asking. The gov't will likely offer a few billion and some vacant land. The overwhelming majority of Canadians will see it as a fair compromise and will support their politicians - even if it means changing the laws. What will Six Nations do when that happens?

[ponyboy]

One of the greatest challenges for the Harper government will be to come up with an approach that helps First Nations in Canada. All of the provincial premiers have pushed the government to re-affirm support the previous government's program. I imagine we'll see the Conservative approach in the months ahead.

I don't know all the issues out there in regards to the relatonship but we know there needs to be work on the part of Canadians and the First Nations communties to help aborginals become a part of Canada. I'd like to hear from other people out there about what they see the issues as being and offering *productive* solutions.

This is what John Ibbitson has said what Native young people should do.

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/...ction=Education

I think it might be a bit harsh. What do others think? Is it possible for youth to do well without having to go all the way to Toronto?

The greatest challenge to little stevie is getting re-elected.All those angry votes against the libs have had a chance to see what a fool Harper is.

[Who's Doing What?]

One of the greatest challenges for the Harper government will be to come up with an approach that helps First Nations in Canada. All of the provincial premiers have pushed the government to re-affirm support the previous government's program. I imagine we'll see the Conservative approach in the months ahead.

I don't know all the issues out there in regards to the relatonship but we know there needs to be work on the part of Canadians and the First Nations communties to help aborginals become a part of Canada. I'd like to hear from other people out there about what they see the issues as being and offering *productive* solutions.

This is what John Ibbitson has said what Native young people should do.

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/...ction=Education

I think it might be a bit harsh. What do others think? Is it possible for youth to do well without having to go all the way to Toronto?

The greatest challenge to little stevie is getting re-elected.All those angry votes against the libs have had a chance to see what a fool Harper is.

LMAO

Harper is in. He will win a landslide in the next election, barring a Bush-esque Iraq-like disaster.

This is coming from a confirmed HARPER HATER. I called him EVIL, SLIMEY, DIS-HONEST, DIM-WITTED and FUNNY LOOKING, but the bottom line is he has done a much better job in producing tangible results than the previous Liberal Govt EVER did. He will have his majority in the next election.

[jdobbin]

LMAO

Harper is in. He will win a landslide in the next election, barring a Bush-esque Iraq-like disaster.

This is coming from a confirmed HARPER HATER. I called him EVIL, SLIMEY, DIS-HONEST, DIM-WITTED and FUNNY LOOKING, but the bottom line is he has done a much better job in producing tangible results than the previous Liberal Govt EVER did. He will have his majority in the next election.

You might be right about an Iraq-like disaster.

I think Afghanistan is making more and more Canadians uneasy. How Harper sells that policy to places like Ontario and Quebec will dictate whether he wins a majority.

[geoffrey]

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

Can I have my health care tax dollars back then? If your not part of Canada, stop abusing our services. Don't tell me you were never born or seen a doctor your whole life, never went to school either.

Why should my money go to people that call themselves non-Canadians?

[Okwaho]

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

Can I have my health care tax dollars back then? If your not part of Canada, stop abusing our services. Don't tell me you were never born or seen a doctor your whole life, never went to school either.

Why should my money go to people that call themselves non-Canadians?

How many times and how many ways do you have to be answered? Your Queen is paying her debt to us from the agreements of settlement made between our nations.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Someone who walks into a bank with a gun and threatens to kill the everyone of they do not get money is not guilty of genocide even if everyone in the bank happenes to be of the same ethnic group.

Actually it is genocide if the intention of the gun bearer was to shoot the people and not rob the bank and the gun bearer is part of a dominent group with clear aims at exterminating the rights and or lives of the ethnic group. The gun-bearer is not part of a group then he is just a racist.

What is happening the Onkwehon:we IS genocide. Your denial is absolute confirmation.

Proof.

O:nen

[scribblet]

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

Can I have my health care tax dollars back then? If your not part of Canada, stop abusing our services. Don't tell me you were never born or seen a doctor your whole life, never went to school either.

Why should my money go to people that call themselves non-Canadians?

Exactly - let them be a 'nation' on their own dime - and quit whining and asking for more handouts.

[geoffrey]

Exactly - let them be a 'nation' on their own dime - and quit whining and asking for more handouts.

They won't take that though. They want the Kelowna accord, which equates to massive payouts from Canadian taxpayers and gives them near autonomy from Canada and it's laws.

That's what they want, our money, our land and their own way to use it. It's unbelievable.

[Okwaho]

We are NOT and NEVER were "a part of Canada"! In fact, if it hadn't been for us there wouldn't be a Canada. It would be New France or the 51st State of The United States.

Can I have my health care tax dollars back then? If your not part of Canada, stop abusing our services. Don't tell me you were never born or seen a doctor your whole life, never went to school either.

Why should my money go to people that call themselves non-Canadians?

Exactly - let them be a 'nation' on their own dime - and quit whining and asking for more handouts.

Are you refering to the lease and rent monies?

[geoffrey]

Are you refering to the lease and rent monies?

Aren't those treaties invalid though? That's your whole argument.

If they are really invalid, then you don't deserve any of the money. It all needs to be paid back.

[Okwaho]

Are you refering to the lease and rent monies?

Aren't those treaties invalid though? That's your whole argument.

If they are really invalid, then you don't deserve any of the money. It all needs to be paid back.

You see...you really need to educate yourselves on these matters. I mean that sincerely not as a prod. The land issues are extremely complex. They differ from Nation to Nation and Territory to Territory. Treaty no. 6 for example was ceded with the "Medicine Chest" clause. They had medical coverage added into it. Some are valid while many are in valid. That is what is refered to as stolen or unceded/unsurrendered land. That is land that we are seeking restitution for. Everyone seems to think that our land issues, treaties, rights etc. are or can be all lumped together. The fact is that they are as diverse as the Nations involved. Some was legitimately bought and some legitimately leased only. Some has been paid off and some hasn't. That is where any money that our communities recieve comes from. What we're arguing is justice. It may not be fair in your mind but, just. I've seen many posts in which the author refers to morals. I can't see where reneging on an agreement whether it's 3 minutes old or 300 hundred years old contains any moral enlightenment or fairness for that matter. I've also read a post where the author stated; "posession is 9/10ths of the law. Tell that to the local constablitory when you're in posession of stolen property. I've seen posts where the author talks about defending their home if it were to be taken from them. Then in the same breath condemn us for doing the same. If you stopped or couldn't pay your rent or your mortgage on your home what would happen? Yet we are condemned for taking the same actions. However, I'm sure that we could come up with some kind of resolution with home owners just as some cottage owners in Ontario have done in the past.

[FTA Lawyer]

Are you refering to the lease and rent monies?

Aren't those treaties invalid though? That's your whole argument.

If they are really invalid, then you don't deserve any of the money. It all needs to be paid back.

You see...you really need to educate yourselves on these matters. I mean that sincerely not as a prod. The land issues are extremely complex. They differ from Nation to Nation and Territory to Territory. Treaty no. 6 for example was ceded with the "Medicine Chest" clause. They had medical coverage added into it. Some are valid while many are in valid. That is what is refered to as stolen or unceded/unsurrendered land. That is land that we are seeking restitution for. Everyone seems to think that our land issues, treaties, rights etc. are or can be all lumped together. The fact is that they are as diverse as the Nations involved. Some was legitimately bought and some legitimately leased only. Some has been paid off and some hasn't. That is where any money that our communities recieve comes from. What we're arguing is justice. It may not be fair in your mind but, just. I've seen many posts in which the author refers to morals. I can't see where reneging on an agreement whether it's 3 minutes old or 300 hundred years old contains any moral enlightenment or fairness for that matter. I've also read a post where the author stated; "posession is 9/10ths of the law. Tell that to the local constablitory when you're in posession of stolen property. I've seen posts where the author talks about defending their home if it were to be taken from them. Then in the same breath condemn us for doing the same. If you stopped or couldn't pay your rent or your mortgage on your home what would happen? Yet we are condemned for taking the same actions. However, I'm sure that we could come up with some kind of resolution with home owners just as some cottage owners in Ontario have done in the past.

I've just spent the last 3 hours reading up on this issue...admittedly I have completely ignored it until today. The history is fascinating and the legalities are indeed very complex. I very much appreciate Okwaho's above post as it demonstrates that there is at least one pro-Six Nations poster here who wants an intelligent and logical discussion.

Sadly, most of the others (whose names I need not state here...you need only read a single post to know them all) are spewing fire and brimstone like complete idiots and accomplishing nothing but reinforcing wrongly held stereotypes and escalating defensive knee-jerk responses from non-natives.

I have a limited legal background in Aboriginal law / title / treaties...which is to say I have studied aboriginal title in an introductory property law class and took an upper-year class sub-titled Aboriginal Issues. I've read most of the cases from Calder to Sparrow to Delgamuukw and also have a well developed working knowledge of the Constitution, including the Charter.

If I were a Justice Canada lawyer I would be giving my client the opinion that the Six-Nations scenario is NOT a test case the Federal Government wants to battle. Keeping in mind that I have only looked at this centuries-old issue for 3 hours, there appears to be considerable merit to the Six-Nations claim to the land in question, as well as considerable merit to the notion that the Confederacy has never acceded to becoming subjects of the Crown.

That being said, there also appears to be a considerable history of the Six-Nations using lawful means to negotiate with the Crown and with individual white settlers in order to advance their interests...and the current lawlessness would likely have been thoroughly renounced by the traditional leaders.

I can follow the argument made by some that the tract of disputed land is Six-Nations land and therefore the laws of Canada don't apply, but I cannot accept it.

I am fully prepared to put forth reasoned arguments in support of the Six-Nations on this...if they cease their contempt of Court, end the occupation, and return to proper legal channels to resolve their dispute.

The fact is that with any treaty-type agreement, you can't seek to rely on the terms of the document in the name of equity, justice and what is right while simultaneously demonstrating the greatest level of disrespect to the other party to the treaty (i.e. direct contempt for their court of law). If they keep it up, they are liable to give the present government its best legal "out" in 300 years (where they otherwise may have no leg to stand on).

FTA

[Riverwind]

If I were a Justice Canada lawyer I would be giving my client the opinion that the Six-Nations scenario is NOT a test case the Federal Government wants to battle. Keeping in mind that I have only looked at this centuries-old issue for 3 hours, there appears to be considerable merit to the Six-Nations claim to the land in question, as well as considerable merit to the notion that the Confederacy has never acceded to becoming subjects of the Crown.

The merits of the case are one thing - the possible remedies that the court might impose are another. Particularly since the potential cost of the settling the claim is huge - so large that people would likely call for constitutional change if the SCC did not find a remedy that respected the rights of existing land owners and the taxpayers that would have to foot the bill.

It seems to me that a lot depends on whether the court would rule that the land was part of of the sovereign territory of Six Nations or whether it is simply land that they owned. If the court rules that the land is sovereign territory of Six Nations then the 500,000 people living in that territory could simply hold a referendum and simply declare that the land is no longer part of Six Nations. If the land is is simply owned then the gov't could retroactively expropriate it from Six Nations and offer some sort of compensation.

I realize these are hypothetical scenarios that would each have their own pitfalls but this is one situation where I believe the law can solve nothing and that there must be a negotiated settlement. In fact, I believe a failure to find a negotiated settlement in this case would likely lead to generations of vicious conflict between aboriginals and non-aboriginals that could become as intractable as the israeli-palestinian problem. IOW - no matter which side "won" in a court fight we would all lose in the end.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

A lawyer is an officer of the court sworn to uphold Canadian law and Crown interests. There is no need for your assistance FTA Lawyer as you would do more harm than good. The examination of Canadian documents and decisions is irrelevent unless it is weighed against our oral and written history under equal weight. It would be fruitless to make a thorough examination of legal documents and then ignore the actual history of our agreements from our perspective.

The government already knows they are bumping a rock. They recognize our sovereignty evidenced by their commitment to negotiate with our Confederacy Council. They already recognize our title to the Haldimand Tract through an Agreement in Principle. All that is left is what to do with the illegal settlers living within our territorial limits.

Canadian courts have no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court only enforces Canadian law and it is fascinating that they have thus far ruled against the Canadian mainstream, using only their own law as a guide. Nevertheless, their rulings have no effect on us. They merely compel Canadians to do what is right under Canadian law. Where Canadian law conflicts with Haudenosaunnee law most believe they can just ignore us and order us to comply.

The Two Row Wampum - the Kaswentah - and the Covenant Chain have promoted the fact that we are sovereign allies of the Crown, and not subjects. Over the years the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation have declared our protection from encroachment by settlers and interests of the Crown and others. Yet these laws prohibiting encroachment, occupation and invasion into our sovereign territoriy has been largely ignored. And dispite our protests that have remained constant over the last 200 years, they continue to be ignored, delayed and obfuscated by your government.

Over the generations we have been encouraged to seek redress through your Indian Agents, your Indian Affairs, your courts and recently in the last 10 years your "Lands Claims Commission". We have appealed to the Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Justice and even the Queen and still we have been ignored and our issues minimized. We have been patient and congenial with understanding and goodwill towards finally resolving these disputes. We have come to the conclusion that Canada and the Crown does not want to resolve our disputes nor comply with their own laws concerning this matter. Having waited for 200 years, we have no choice but to change the rules under which we will resolve our disputes. In the case of land matters, we have begun to take back those lands in dispute and to compel the Crown to answer proof that we ever offered it for lease of sale. In your 3 hours of research it might have dawned on you that there is no proof - something we ascertained 200 years ago and have repeatedly presented as evidence to Canada as recently as last year, only to be dismissed as insufficient.

There is nothing insufficient about the reclamation, occupation and control of our own lands. The occupation will continue and it is likely as the result of Judge Marshall's ruling yesterday that it may be a long time before we get back to the negotiating table. Canada can delay all that they want now, since we hold and will develop those lands as we see fit. There will be no courts or surrenders that will change the status of the lands. They are protected now and until your government makes a petition to our Council for discussion about it, there will be no compromise. The next move is Canada's and from where I sit starting negotiations from a lower position doesn't allow Canada to demand much in the way of settlement.

“Brother! – If you wish us well then keep away; don’t disturb us.”

Red Jacket, Seneca Sachem May 1811

O:nen

[Okwaho]

I can follow the argument made by some that the tract of disputed land is Six-Nations land and therefore the laws of Canada don't apply, but I cannot accept it.

I am one of the them. Under internaltion law one nation cannot inforce their law on another nation within their own territory.

I am fully prepared to put forth reasoned arguments in support of the Six-Nations on this...if they cease their contempt of Court, end the occupation, and return to proper legal channels to resolve their dispute.

The fact is that with any treaty-type agreement, you can't seek to rely on the terms of the document in the name of equity, justice and what is right while simultaneously demonstrating the greatest level of disrespect to the other party to the treaty (i.e. direct contempt for their court of law). If they keep it up, they are liable to give the present government its best legal "out" in 300 years (where they otherwise may have no leg to stand on).

We haven't had any presence on the land for the whole duration that the land matter was under the government's land process. While we were of the understanding that the land was in the process of being dealt with it is sold to a developer. We occupied the land in order to prevent its further development. It is the exact same stunt they pulled in Kahnasatake (Oka) in 1990. You are demanding that we trust the government and their law on that basis. We are not in contempt of their court of law they are and history has proven that repetedly. That is the reason we will remain there until it is resolved.