Indigenous rights and titles

[saga4]

It seems pretty well all Canadians have reason to be interested in a nearby Indigenous land claim and these days.

I'm starting this with information about Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Six Nations Confederacy. No doubt there's a reserve or claim near you (or on you in the case of Toronto:)) that has a website.

I will post some here and perhaps other people can too.

This is my favourite, the grandfather treaty... now part of our Constitution...

Two Row Wampum

http://www.kahnawake.com/ckr/two_row.htm

...and this is information about Haudenosaunee participatory democracy and religion (they are not separate) ...and also UN Haudenosaunee Address to the western world, 1977

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

... a quick summary of spiritual matters

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v04n6p06.htm

[Who's Doing What?]

It seems pretty well all Canadians have reason to be interested in a nearby Indigenous land claim and these days.

I'm starting this with information about Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Six Nations Confederacy. No doubt there's a reserve or claim near you (or on you in the case of Toronto:)) that has a website.

I will post some here and perhaps other people can too.

This is my favourite, the grandfather treaty... now part of our Constitution...

Two Row Wampum

http://www.kahnawake.com/ckr/two_row.htm

...and this is information about Haudenosaunee participatory democracy and religion (they are not separate) and also UN Haudenosaunee Address to the western world, 1977

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

How many Laws from the 1600's are still in effect today?

What percentage of the total current # of laws in use, do the remaining 1600's laws still in effect, make up?

How much value does that mean should be placed on other 1600's legal documents?

[Who's Doing What?]

It seems pretty well all Canadians have reason to be interested in a nearby Indigenous land claim and these days.

I'm starting this with information about Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Six Nations Confederacy. No doubt there's a reserve or claim near you (or on you in the case of Toronto:)) that has a website.

I will post some here and perhaps other people can too.

This is my favourite, the grandfather treaty... now part of our Constitution...

Two Row Wampum

http://www.kahnawake.com/ckr/two_row.htm

...and this is information about Haudenosaunee participatory democracy and religion (they are not separate) and also UN Haudenosaunee Address to the western world, 1977

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

How many Laws from the 1600's are still in effect today?

What percentage of the total current # of laws in use, do the remaining 1600's laws still in effect, make up?

How much value does that mean should be placed on other 1600's legal documents?

Well this one is

And I believe some others ... the treaties that were the formations of countries around the world are often still in effect. They are kind of important.

I don't recognize the validity of that document.

It is not a law, and apparently it is not in effect.

Seems to me they used to burn Witches at the stake in the 1600's too.

Is that something else we should be re-evaluating too?

[Who's Doing What?]

It seems pretty well all Canadians have reason to be interested in a nearby Indigenous land claim and these days.

I'm starting this with information about Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Six Nations Confederacy. No doubt there's a reserve or claim near you (or on you in the case of Toronto:)) that has a website.

I will post some here and perhaps other people can too.

This is my favourite, the grandfather treaty... now part of our Constitution...

Two Row Wampum

http://www.kahnawake.com/ckr/two_row.htm

...and this is information about Haudenosaunee participatory democracy and religion (they are not separate) and also UN Haudenosaunee Address to the western world, 1977

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

How many Laws from the 1600's are still in effect today?

What percentage of the total current # of laws in use, do the remaining 1600's laws still in effect, make up?

How much value does that mean should be placed on other 1600's legal documents?

Well this one is

And I believe some others ... the treaties that were the formations of countries around the world are often still in effect. They are kind of important.

I don't recognize the validity of that document.

It is not a law, and apparently it is not in effect.

Seems to me they used to burn Witches at the stake in the 1600's too.

Is that something else we should be re-evaluating too?

It is incorporated into the Royal Proclamation (1763) which is incorporated into the Constitution of Canada (1982) , so it is still law today.

Where?

Show this claim.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Constitution Act, 1982(1)

SCHEDULE B

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a.) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b.) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

Constitution Act, 1982(1)

SCHEDULE B

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a.) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b.) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

O:nen

OK. You are in the constitution. So by holding parts of the country hostage you think the govt. will capitulate.

What is to stop them just changing the constitution? How about a challenge that the extrodinary rights and freedoms of the aboriginals of Canada are unfair? Why as an anglo saxon am I not given the same rights? Why should I pay taxes? Buy my licenses? Or obey MNR guidelines? I am feeling excluded. The laws are racist.

When 10 to 20 million other Canadians start mumbling the same thing, treaty or not, constitution or not, you will be left with next to nothing.

I still don't recognize the validity of that document. Why should I? I don't recognize the Queen of England as being any better than me or my neighbours either.

But you want to come to my homestead where my family has been for almost 100 years and tell me that some 300 year old document gives you the rights to the house and barn my Great Grandfather built. I'm going to tell you to go copulate with your hat.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Your information is out of date. There was a revision in 1983 that altered that clause it now reads

( any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

There is a difference in my opinon. It appears that the revision provides an escape clause in legal terms, rights being acquired idicates that the government may elect to incorporate another solution in place of land claims settlements.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You are coming late into this, as it has been throughly examined on a couple of other threads.

The Haldimand Tract is not part of Canada. It is sovereign Haudenosaunee territory protected by the Royal Proclamation and enforced by the Haldimand proclamation. The reclamation process is a means by which we assert our sovereignty over the lands.

The Government of Canada, seriously limits your rights and freedoms as a means to control you. The Haudenosaunee Constitution protects our freedoms and these are two separate systems. Our rights as onkwehon:we are inherent and guaranteed. Your rights are limited.

An amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not an option because Canada is not an autonomous nation. You are under the control of the Crown and only the Queen may initiate and proclaim any changes to the Constitution. It was the Queen's insistence that the Charter include a section on pre-existing aboriginal rights in recognition of our long-standing relationship on a nation to nation basis, so it is not likely she would agree to amending what she thinks is necessary. That aside it would have no effect, anyway since our law and constitution protects our rights and freedoms. Yours has no authority over us and if you read section 25 carefully you will find it is a recognition of our rights, not a grant of them.

Your leaders recognize our sovereign right and will make decisions that 20 million other Canadians have no say in. The problem you as a Canadian face now is that it is lilkely that if the government doesn't not negotiate in good faith, you will be left with nothing, since your ancestors came here with nothing to start out with.

Like the others you are welcome to believe in any Canadian myth you want. They don't resemble the true state of affairs and First nations must be reckoned with, whether you like it or not. You are just a number in the scheme of things, and being one in about 20 million that pretty good odds you won't shape or influence the future of Canada...any more than a flea can bother an elephant....

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

You are coming late into this, as it has been throughly examined on a couple of other threads.

The Haldimand Tract is not part of Canada. It is sovereign Haudenosaunee territory protected by the Royal Proclamation and enforced by the Haldimand proclamation. The reclamation process is a means by which we assert our sovereignty over the lands.

O:nen

That is your oppinion. Myself, and I'm sure atleast a few million other Canadians think that, that chunk of land IS part of Canada. It has been paid for, if in nothing else than the taxes the natives could have been charged over the last 300 years. How many Natives hunt or fish? Just a rough estimate.

Now multiply that number by the cost of the licenses each one would have to buy.

How much money every year, is the govt losing because of what basically are racist laws?

Where I live the Natives own some of the most valuable property available. They pay no taxes as it is a reservation. If regular "Canadians" were to build on the land, the taxes would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, each and every year. So over the last 100, how much has it cost the govt.?

If the Natives can reach 300 years into the past and demand payment for something, then perhaps so should the govt.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You are sdo far out of touch with the legal reality that your comments don't deserve any reply. Did you wake up this morning feeling a little slower that usual? Or is it a genetic disposition?

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

You are sdo far out of touch with the legal reality that your comments don't deserve any reply. Did you wake up this morning feeling a little slower that usual? Or is it a genetic disposition?

O:nen

I'm out of touch??

You're the one running around with a 300 yr old piece of paper, and thinks it entitles you to Trillions of dollars worth of land.

[geoffrey]

That's the most twisted legal interpretation I've ever read.

You take this:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a.) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b.) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

To mean that your treaties stand up? No. It's saying that any gaurntees in the Constitution don't override the treaty. It mentions nothing about your treaty being valid.

It is however, a very close clause to what you would have seen in pseudodemocracies like old South Africa. I'm sure they'd have a clause along the lines of "no guarntees in this constition will abrogate special freedoms and rights given to non-coloured individuals."

We're all equal expect 'x' racial group, who is better.

I can't stand for that.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

If you ever read a treaty in your life you would see that it is about recognizing and maintaing indigeneous rights to the lands, to the resources and to the ownership, while sharing it with settlers. The fact that your Charter guarantees those rights will not be dismissed validates the treaties.

That aside, the Royal and Haldimand Proclamations were NOT treaties. They were a recognition by the British and (now by Canada) of the continued right of Six Nations people, and other native peoples to total ownership of the lands and absolute autonomy over them. That means that I I want to shoot a rabbit in YOUR backyard then I have that pre-exiting right. Nothing contained in the Charter (and in essence in law) can remove or alter that right. As to the Haldiamnd Proclamation it was a guarantee that the tract would be protected as our lands forever. There is no statute of limitations on "forever".

I don't care whether or not YOU can stand for that or not. It is the law of your country and saving that the Queen should suddenly croak and be replaced with an inhumane dictator, you are stuck with it. Regardless our laws are separate and even if you decided to change your laws tomorrow, it would have no effect because we are subjects of our own sovereign nation and have our own set of laws. Save and except a crime of murder or rape, there is no extradition treaty between Canada and the Haudensaunee. NONE of your law, or policataal system applies to us.

Get over it. It is the reality.

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

If you ever read a treaty in your life you would see that it is about recognizing and maintaing indigeneous rights to the lands, to the resources and to the ownership, while sharing it with settlers. The fact that your Charter guarantees those rights will not be dismissed validates the treaties.

That aside, the Royal and Haldimand Proclamations were NOT treaties. They were a recognition by the British and (now by Canada) of the continued right of Six Nations people, and other native peoples to total ownership of the lands and absolute autonomy over them. That means that I I want to shoot a rabbit in YOUR backyard then I have that pre-exiting right. Nothing contained in the Charter (and in essence in law) can remove or alter that right. As to the Haldiamnd Proclamation it was a guarantee that the tract would be protected as our lands forever. There is no statute of limitations on "forever".

I don't care whether or not YOU can stand for that or not. It is the law of your country and saving that the Queen should suddenly croak and be replaced with an inhumane dictator, you are stuck with it. Regardless our laws are separate and even if you decided to change your laws tomorrow, it would have no effect because we are subjects of our own sovereign nation and have our own set of laws. Save and except a crime of murder or rape, there is no extradition treaty between Canada and the Haudensaunee. NONE of your law, or policataal system applies to us.

Get over it. It is the reality.

O:nen

So you feel you have the right to come on MY land, with a GUN, any time you want too, and start shooting the Wildlife?

I don't see that going over too well.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Read you consitution. YOU have no property rights. We do........through our treaties and pre-existing right.

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

I say, I have property rights to my land, and the Deed says the same, and that is all I need to know.

I don't care what paper you want to wave in my face.

I will not be forced to leave my land, with some 300 year old treaty I don't recognize as valid.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Even if it is a valid treaty, the land has already been paid for.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Then forced fomr the land you will be. Your government will do it because they are pretty sure your have no property rights. Take you complaints to them!

Pre-existing right has no paper. It has occupation and reclamation as its evidence. Taking your home from under you, should that be necessary would be as easy as shutting down your water, power and sanitary services in the middle of winter. There would be no fight and no conflilct. Its just that easy.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

It was only a matter of time before he started threatening violence. The personal threats are likely to come soon. Best to just let him blow off some steam and not respond.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

I have made no threat of violence. In fact I advocate a non-violent approach to a hypothetical question. However, I do understand your fears.....and where they originate in myth.

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

Then forced fomr the land you will be. Your government will do it because they are pretty sure your have no property rights. Take you complaints to them!

Pre-existing right has no paper. It has occupation and reclamation as its evidence. Taking your home from under you, should that be necessary would be as easy as shutting down your water, power and sanitary services in the middle of winter. There would be no fight and no conflilct. Its just that easy.

O:nen

That is the Natives answer to this? More Violence? Or face death by dehydration and exposure?

Just exactly how violent do you think you will be allowed to get before you are simply declared terrorists?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I wouldn't recommend walking onto property around here where I live with a gun and start making demands and statements of claim my friend. Nobody wants to see native mortality rates go up a bit rapidly in that kind of scenario.

From what I have read the land in question was actually sold to the government by representatives of the first nations in about 1793. So what is the big deal? It ain't yours no more buddy! You already sold it off.

[Okwaho]

That's the most twisted legal interpretation I've ever read.

You take this:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a.) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b.) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

To mean that your treaties stand up? No. It's saying that any gaurntees in the Constitution don't override the treaty. It mentions nothing about your treaty being valid.

It is however, a very close clause to what you would have seen in pseudodemocracies like old South Africa. I'm sure they'd have a clause along the lines of "no guarntees in this constition will abrogate special freedoms and rights given to non-coloured individuals."

We're all equal expect 'x' racial group, who is better.

I can't stand for that.

Let me simplify!

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed (interpreted) so as to abrogate (repeal or cancel) or derogate (detract from) from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms (Proclamations and agreements) that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including...

Section 35 (1).

The existing (have being) aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada are hereby recognized (realize validity) and affirmed (state as fact).

Here is your constitutional validation for aboriginal and treaty rights!

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

One country's "freedom fighters" are the invading countries terrorists. Hypothectically speaking we would not intitate violence. We would defend ourselves for sure if push came to shove, but it would not be us causing the conflict.

O:nen

[Okwaho]

I say, I have property rights to my land, and the Deed says the same, and that is all I need to know.

I don't care what paper you want to wave in my face.

I will not be forced to leave my land, with some 300 year old treaty I don't recognize as valid.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Even if it is a valid treaty, the land has already been paid for.

Now you are begining to understand us!!!

[Who's Doing What?]

Look buddy. Your people have already put up blockades, caused property damage and economic loss.

If you all start coming onto people's property with firearms and forcably removing them, shooting them or starving them out of their homes, you are in a whole new ballgame.