Indigenous rights and titles

[Riverwind]

"it is not a legal issue because your country has no jurisdiction"

Again, that argument is easily dismissed by pointing out that Canada has the legal authority over those lands today and there is nothing Six Nations can do about it. Claiming that Canada has no legal authority over this issue is like claiming the sky is green. You can insist that it is true but anyone listening will just shake their heads and wonder what medication you are on.

"morality has no place because irrelevant".

If morality has no place then Canada should just ignore Six Nations and jail or kill anyone who complains. Anyone who claims that morality is irrelevant is walking on dangerous ground and will most likely regret making such statements. I most definately don't believe that morality is irrelevant - but if you insist that it is then you are giving the gov't permission to do whatever it wants - not matter how immoral.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon! Riverswirl,

Spin spin spin you go......

Your argument is lost again. We proved that Canad neigher has the legal capacity as a Crown Corporation to change law than does Walmart set the minimum wage. LOST!

YOUR moral argument is irrelevent. SPIN SPIN SPIN you go. In a strictly moral sense it is immoral to steal something and expect to benefit from it.

How old are you? 13?

O:nen

[Riverwind]

Your argument is lost again. We proved that Canad neigher has the legal capacity as a Crown Corporation to change law than does Walmart set the minimum wage.

You truly do live in a different universe. Canada has sovereign authority over this land because 33,000,000 people say so. No words on documents or theoretical arguments change that.

In a strictly moral sense it is immoral to steal something and expect to benefit from it.

That is a moral argument I would expect from a child. An adult would understand that most moral dilemmas are quite complex and there are no simple answers.

[Okwaho]

1st of all I said "beginning to become", I did not say that anyone already was.

And the difference is?

The difference is getting smaller with every militant action. The fact you fail to see this is going to be your people's undoing.

I would treat the leader of the KKK with less respect than I am giving you. But ofcourse through your eyes all "whities" are members of the KKK aren't they?

And then you wonder why no one wants to listen?

There you go trying put words in my mouth again!

Did you not read my post about Emily Johnson and Mary Jemison or, did you just choose to disregard so can continue with you hipnotic racism trance you always retreat to when your wrong.

Nope must have missed that page turner of a post.

OOOOh i'm a racist again am I?

That is such a lame argument. That is what everyone starts to cry when they have run out of logical arguments. "Oh your a racist, because of this. Your a racist, because of that."

Does it make me racist to defend my home?

Does it make me racist to say everyone should be treated equally?

Does it make me a racist to say I'm not leaving property my family bought and paid for.

It is you who says you are entitled to things, no one else is, because of your race. Not me.

So who really is the racist here?

You can't even keep it straight. Frist, you say you own all of Canada, and the Europeans stole it, or atleast are using it without ever paying for it. Then you turn around and defend the money you receive as being payment for land. What's the story Morning Glory?

It's not my fault you're illiterate and can't follow along. It's all there you just have to read it without trying taking it out of context.

OK, but you are the one who said the money natives get, from the Govt. is for land that was purchased.

There you go being incomprehesible again. Go back and read the post!

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Hilter sent 65,000,000 jews with the blessing of the German people because they believed they were the superior race. It was neither a moral or a legal act.

Just because people believe something is so, doesn't make a myth anymore real. If those 33,000,000 Germans could have been told the truth it is likey they would have changed their mind.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

Hilter sent 65,000,000 jews with the blessing of the German people because they believed they were the superior race. It was neither a moral or a legal act.

It was 6 to 10 million. But it is nothing to do with whether Canada has sovereignty of this land. It is clear that you don't understand what sovereignty means. I have tried to educate you but you appear to be a poor student. I will try it once more:

A country has sovereignty over a territory when it is able to enforce its and laws and collect taxes from the people living in the territory. There are a few places such as the current Six Nations reserve where sovereignty is shared with a local gov't, however, these exceptions do not change the fact that Canada is able to enforce its laws and collect taxes in its territory.

[Who's Doing What?]

There you go being incomprehesible again. Go back and read the post!

Courage? What courage do you have? The Courage to take up arms against unarmed civilians and blockade access to where they need to go?

Like your army is doing in Afganistan or like they did in Somalia (where they bound and beat a sixteen year old boy to death)?

If you're refering to Oka (the only place there were weapons) we didn't walk into the town of Oka the incident took place and we remained on our own territory. With the exception of our own people there were no civilians near us. Our Nation was under seige and we deployed our army to defend ourselves in our home.

Courage to hide behind masks as you point guns at our officers of the law?

The masks were used so they wouldn't center us out like they did with Dudley George. Remember him, he was unarmed? Your a fine example of concern for your law. You feel it should be disregarded where it concerns our co-existence through agreements. Now you criticize us for defending ourselves. I suspect you don't have a clue what went on there aside from the what media put out.

Courage to take govt. monies, and then try to weasel the land back you say was stolen?

The money our communities recieve is from the land that was already purchased that your Crown holds. The land that was taken without compensation is land the stolen land. As you say, get your facts straight before you go flapping your jaws.

The radicals on this site have done more to hurt the Native cause than any roadblock. With what has been said on this forum, the rest of us now know what the agenda of the natives really is. It is not Fair treatment. It is not simply MORE LAND. The Natives want ALL OF THE LAND, and the feel they have THE RIGHT TO FORCIBLY REMOVE CITIZENS FROM THEIR HOMES AND PROPERTY to get it.

The more I read your taken out of context mindless dribble the more I feel embarressed for your fellow citizens!

Lets look at your agenda;

You're willing to commit National and cultural genocide on us in order to force us comply to your demand that we should be Canadians.

You wish to cancel the payments we recieve for land sold in the past and still feel you should keep it.

You believe Canada owns all of the land and none of it belongs to us.

Under your law when you fail to pay a mortgage or rent you are evicted. Refusal to vacate is followed by the physical removal of the former tenant. Yet you feel we are commiting some heinous crime for doing the same.

I can see what your agenda is adding up to.

So have you been paid for land or what?

[watching&waiting]

I guess the first thing we need to do is go back to lok at the time all this was happening. All of North America was up for Conquest by the European countries. The native indians along the way did make treaties and allinaces, that still have some effect today, but the insistance that all the land belonged to the native people is wrong. The natives were small in numbers and occupied very little land in North America. Many of these native people were a conquered race and made treaties and deals to be able to live their own lifestyle within certan areas givenb to them under treaty. I find it hard to believe that the lands given were of the lush forests or good agricultural land, as that was not the habit of the times. Also this land was given for use not for ownership. The land with all its borders was Crown land and was given meither in lieu of settleing homsteads, or purchased from the crown some where along the time.

Modern society has given into Indain land claims far too often and that has lead to us changing the very ways we do things today. Modern land deals do not transfer the oil and mineral rights to the proerty you believe you own today, as of acouple decades ago they seen that this was the way to make sure then that the Crown or Gov still had all rights to anything even if it was under your home. We have been very rough shod in the treatment of our own people, and far too lienient towards the native people. Today we need to redo the native claims by saying the land must be occupied regularly either as habitat or hunted and fished upon. Any other usages would be forfiet back to the crown. This will stop the crazy claims where natives say it all belongs to them. It never did belong to them and only under our system were there any property ownership available. Back in the old days indians hunted and fisdhed their own territories and the only way things were ever set was if the fought another tribe and took that land. Well under the rules of that same time the Europeans came and fought and took the land away from the indian. Just like the British took Quebec from the french. It was called spoils of war. All the land winthin the domaine of Canada at the time of its becoming a nation was then goverment owned lands any land that was not deeded but surveyed to be within Canadas borders.

We as a society have given Indians very special status and granted them hunting and fishing rights in many areas that other Canadians can not go. We support any native who lives on a reservation and even many who are not living within the reserves. I would gladly support a bill that would set out direstly that any land that native people have built communities on or have had worked the land is the land mass they can call their own. The areas that were granted for hunting and fishing, should not be developed by the people of Canada unless for a transportation route. If that land is to be developed it must be replaced with equal land from another area with the same access to it.

I would not let protesters get out of hand with demonstrations and as soon as a group attacked a car or person, they should be arrested and processed in the courts. The laws of Canada stand no matter if you are native or not. If force needs to be used it should be with in the confines of only the amount necessary to achieve the task. No one is above the law and no one should be ableto get away with this.

[Okwaho]

I guess the first thing we need to do is go back to lok at the time all this was happening. All of North America was up for Conquest by the European countries. The native indians along the way did make treaties and allinaces, that still have some effect today, but the insistance that all the land belonged to the native people is wrong. The natives were small in numbers and occupied very little land in North America. Many of these native people were a conquered race and made treaties and deals to be able to live their own lifestyle within certan areas givenb to them under treaty. I find it hard to believe that the lands given were of the lush forests or good agricultural land, as that was not the habit of the times. Also this land was given for use not for ownership. The land with all its borders was Crown land and was given meither in lieu of settleing homsteads, or purchased from the crown some where along the time.

Name me one Native Nation in Canada that was conquered!

You European perception of unoccupied land is invalid! It is now and it was then. The concept you are refering to is called "squatter's rights." Read the Royal Proclamation, October, 7, 1763. It tells the squatters to remove themselves from all lands not having been purchased by the Crown! In the modern treaty process all land must be ceded/surrendered in right of or by way of Crown.

Modern society has given into Indain land claims far too often and that has lead to us changing the very ways we do things today. Modern land deals do not transfer the oil and mineral rights to the proerty you believe you own today, as of acouple decades ago they seen that this was the way to make sure then that the Crown or Gov still had all rights to anything even if it was under your home. We have been very rough shod in the treatment of our own people, and far too lienient towards the native people. Today we need to redo the native claims by saying the land must be occupied regularly either as habitat or hunted and fished upon. Any other usages would be forfiet back to the crown. This will stop the crazy claims where natives say it all belongs to them. It never did belong to them and only under our system were there any property ownership available. Back in the old days indians hunted and fisdhed their own territories and the only way things were ever set was if the fought another tribe and took that land. Well under the rules of that same time the Europeans came and fought and took the land away from the indian. Just like the British took Quebec from the french. It was called spoils of war. All the land winthin the domaine of Canada at the time of its becoming a nation was then goverment owned lands any land that was not deeded but surveyed to be within Canadas borders.

So in essence what your saying is that if you own 5 acres of land and your house and both yards are on 1/2 of an acre, antone can come and build a house on a part the remaining 41/2 acres and there's nothing you can do about it correct?

We as a society have given Indians very special status and granted them hunting and fishing rights in many areas that other Canadians can not go. We support any native who lives on a reservation and even many who are not living within the reserves. I would gladly support a bill that would set out direstly that any land that native people have built communities on or have had worked the land is the land mass they can call their own. The areas that were granted for hunting and fishing, should not be developed by the people of Canada unless for a transportation route. If that land is to be developed it must be replaced with equal land from another area with the same access to it.

You as Canadains didn't give us any hunting and fishing rights we didn't have before European contact. Your concept of land ownership and usage is ludicrous. Go to the uninhabited regions of the State of Maine and try and use it.

I would not let protesters get out of hand with demonstrations and as soon as a group attacked a car or person, they should be arrested and processed in the courts. The laws of Canada stand no matter if you are native or not. If force needs to be used it should be with in the confines of only the amount necessary to achieve the task. No one is above the law and no one should be ableto get away with this.

That's fine a crime occurs on sovereign Crown territory but not on ours! You can't enforce Canadain law in the U.S.

[geoffrey]

Hey, if we pay your bills, then our law applies. Give us back our money if you want to claim soverignty.

[Okwaho]

Hey, if we pay your bills, then our law applies. Give us back our money if you want to claim soverignty.

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it!

As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us.

[ponyboy]

Hey, if we pay your bills, then our law applies. Give us back our money if you want to claim soverignty.

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it!

As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us.

Speak for yourself Geoffy,stop using the we,you don't speak for me.My money goes to First Nations,yours can go Oh! the neo-cons,i don't really care.

[watching&waiting]

I said it before and I will again the indian nations were pretty much a conquered people, and yes that can happen also with treaties etc. You have never owned the land in Canada and there fore have no rights to it after the nation of Canada was declared. You have ever right that other Canadians do plus many that others do not. That is the extent of the whole issue of land claims in my eyes. If the Native people wnat to try and stop things being built they have the courts, but when they take it on themselves, then it should be the jail system. If ever a weapon is fired then it should be upon them to bring that offender forward, or suffer punishment as a group.

I will fight tom the death nto make sure you have all the same rights as the rest, but also will fight to the death to make sure it stays equal in the eyes of the law. If you do not like that then go else where becuase Canada will not be divided along these lines ever. It has been over 15r0 years and the gravy train is about out of extras and goodies. Either remain on your reserves and maintain your old ways, or become modern and update your traditions, but do that at your own expense.

So yes you can say I support the natives right to the choice of life, but not at the expense of the rest of Canada. If it takes force to enforce this then that is what will need to happen. It would be sad for it to go that way, but it looks like that is the way it must be.

[Okwaho]

I said it before and I will again the indian nations were pretty much a conquered people, and yes that can happen also with treaties etc. You have never owned the land in Canada and there fore have no rights to it after the nation of Canada was declared. You have ever right that other Canadians do plus many that others do not. That is the extent of the whole issue of land claims in my eyes. If the Native people wnat to try and stop things being built they have the courts, but when they take it on themselves, then it should be the jail system. If ever a weapon is fired then it should be upon them to bring that offender forward, or suffer punishment as a group.

Are you for real? If we wre a conquered people and didn't hold title to the land. the Crown wouldn't be trying to make treaties with us. If you are going to make a statement such as we are a conquered people, then at least have the facts to back it up! Give your head a shake to expell the denial stuck inside your ears!

I will fight tom the death nto make sure you have all the same rights as the rest, but also will fight to the death to make sure it stays equal in the eyes of the law. If you do not like that then go else where becuase Canada will not be divided along these lines ever. It has been over 15r0 years and the gravy train is about out of extras and goodies. Either remain on your reserves and maintain your old ways, or become modern and update your traditions, but do that at your own expense.

I find it extremely laughable how you can make a statement like: "I will fight tom the death nto make sure you have all the same rights as the rest, but also will fight to the death to make sure it stays equal in the eyes of the law". In other words your going to destroy my way of life to make me become you and in the same breath, you condemn us for defending ourselves from your New World Order. As far as your law goes we have pointed out over and over again how those like you and your government are breaking it!

So yes you can say I support the natives right to the choice of life, but not at the expense of the rest of Canada. If it takes force to enforce this then that is what will need to happen. It would be sad for it to go that way, but it looks like that is the way it must be.

To the point of your arrogant self-imposed life you mean! Save your idle threats of force I've been in firefights that'd make you loose all of your bodily functions.

[geoffrey]

Hey, if we pay your bills, then our law applies. Give us back our money if you want to claim soverignty.

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it!

As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us.

Why do we owe you money if your a soverign nation outside of Canada? We don't pay the U.S. or Britian any money for the hell of it, why do I need to pay for your health care and post secondary if your not Canadian?

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Why do we owe you money if your a soverign nation outside of Canada? We don't pay the U.S. or Britian any money for the hell of it, why do I need to pay for your health care and post secondary if your not Canadian?

Hi Geoffrey

I know you already know this......

The Crown/Government made an agreement to share the land in exchange for perpetual upkeep, and a stipulation of this agreement was that both parties follow the relationship outlined in The Two Row Wampum. Both parties agreed to Honour the deal and peacefully co-exist together.

If you take a serious look into the actual benefits received, they are not that great or a road to a Pot 'O' Gold as some posters on here may think.

[mister_v]

Hey, if we pay your bills, then our law applies. Give us back our money if you want to claim soverignty.

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it!

As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us.

Six Nations sovereignty was indeed lost. The Haldimand Deed AND the Simcoe Deed both clearly state that the Six Nations are settling the land under the protection of the Crown which made them subjects of the Crown as they then owed allegiance to the Crown. By extension, they are subject to the laws of Canada, even where those laws conflict with the Confederacy's traditional form of government.

[Okwaho]

Hey, if we pay your bills, then our law applies. Give us back our money if you want to claim soverignty.

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it!

As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us.

Six Nations sovereignty was indeed lost. The Haldimand Deed AND the Simcoe Deed both clearly state that the Six Nations are settling the land under the protection of the Crown which made them subjects of the Crown as they then owed allegiance to the Crown. By extension, they are subject to the laws of Canada, even where those laws conflict with the Confederacy's traditional form of government.

You are mistaken! The Haldimand and the Simcoe state "friends and allies of the Crown." Arcaic English; "under the protection of the Crown" means protected from the Crowns subjects intruding and squatting on our land. Read them again!

[geoffrey]

Why do we owe you money if your a soverign nation outside of Canada? We don't pay the U.S. or Britian any money for the hell of it, why do I need to pay for your health care and post secondary if your not Canadian?

Hi Geoffrey

I know you already know this......

The Crown/Government made an agreement to share the land in exchange for perpetual upkeep, and a stipulation of this agreement was that both parties follow the relationship outlined in The Two Row Wampum. Both parties agreed to Honour the deal and peacefully co-exist together.

If you take a serious look into the actual benefits received, they are not that great or a road to a Pot 'O' Gold as some posters on here may think.

Hey Enskat,

Good to see your debating this in good faith, I'd glady carry on a reasonable conservation with someone that wants to present some rational thought.

Indeed, that's my general understanding of the agreements that the Crown made with various 'Native' groups throughout Canada. The Crown isn't cutting off benefits or payments, in fact, they've only increased them over the years. Why is Six Nations then not co-operating with our laws? It seems like the Crown is operating in good faith, paying our bills, taking care of the status Indians. Why is the Six Nations not following the laws they agreed to live under?

Do you think that Canada has a obligation to pay out Indian groups? Is the other side of that responsiblity that the Indian groups live under Canadian law?

How can the soverignty but still financially supported by Canada argument really work? Is there not very apparent hypocracy there?

Is it right for the squatters to remain on the land, despite a superior court injunction against them? Is it right for the Chiefs to encourage that illegal behavoir? Where do we draw the line?

[mister_v]

You are mistaken! The Haldimand and the Simcoe state "friends and allies of the Crown." Arcaic English; "under the protection of the Crown" means protected from the Crowns subjects intruding and squatting on our land. Read them again!

Most certainly that is what protection referred to, that is why the Simcoe Deed required that land surrenders be made directly to the Crown, rather than direct sales to private parties. However, regardless of WHY they were under Crown's protection the wording is clear: the Six Nations settled that land under the protection of the Crown. As a result they went from being allies of the Crown to subjects of the Crown. Neither the Haldimand Proclamation nor the Simcoe Deed contain any mention of Six Nations sovereignty over the land as that was certainly not the intent of either document, in fact both are very explicit about the protection part. The Tract was simply to compensate the Six Nations for land lost in the American Revolution. The lack of sovereignty is keeping in line with the Royal Proclamation, which did not provide for Indian sovereignty either. In fact, the Crown considered all Indian lands to be under its domain but only those lands purchased from Indians by Crown officials could be settled by colonists.

The fact that the Six Nations is settled on land that originally was not theirs (the Tract as outlined in the Simcoe Deed was purchased by the Crown from the Mississaugas) makes any land claims by the Six Nations distinct from any other claims by any other native bands in Canada.

[Okwaho]

You are mistaken! The Haldimand and the Simcoe state "friends and allies of the Crown." Arcaic English; "under the protection of the Crown" means protected from the Crowns subjects intruding and squatting on our land. Read them again!

Most certainly that is what protection referred to, that is why the Simcoe Deed required that land surrenders be made directly to the Crown, rather than direct sales to private parties. However, regardless of WHY they were under Crown's protection the wording is clear: the Six Nations settled that land under the protection of the Crown. As a result they went from being allies of the Crown to subjects of the Crown. Neither the Haldimand Proclamation nor the Simcoe Deed contain any mention of Six Nations sovereignty over the land as that was certainly not the intent of either document, in fact both are very explicit about the protection part. The Tract was simply to compensate the Six Nations for land lost in the American Revolution. The lack of sovereignty is keeping in line with the Royal Proclamation, which did not provide for Indian sovereignty either. In fact, the Crown considered all Indian lands to be under its domain but only those lands purchased from Indians by Crown officials could be settled by colonists.

The fact that the Six Nations is settled on land that originally was not theirs (the Tract as outlined in the Simcoe Deed was purchased by the Crown from the Mississaugas) makes any land claims by the Six Nations distinct from any other claims by any other native bands in Canada.

You are totally wrong. If you'd like to take a ride to the U.S. I'll prove to you going back and forth accross the border. Our Conferacy exists today who do you think is sitting at the table over Caledonia?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

If Natives in Canada are indeed sovereign as is stated above, then let me ask this:

When you go to a country other than the USA, what passport do you use?

If you answer 'a Canadian passport', then in my opinion, and the rest of the world will think that you are Canadian. Seems pretty simple to me.

[jdobbin]

If Natives in Canada are indeed sovereign as is stated above, then let me ask this:

When you go to a country other than the USA, what passport do you use?

If you answer 'a Canadian passport', then in my opinion, and the rest of the world will think that you are Canadian. Seems pretty simple to me.

They can travel to the U.S. freely with no passport for now.

http://www.canadanorth.usvpp.gov/first_nations.asp

However, the new security rules will entail that they might indeed need a passport despite the Jay Treaty.

If they travel to other countries though, they must have a Canadian passport.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The Confederacy have their own passports and they are recognized throughout the Americas and Europe. There are no passports or travel documents for Haudenosaunee people to travel in the US or Canada.

O:nen

[geoffrey]

She:kon!

The Confederacy have their own passports and they are recognized throughout the Americas and Europe. There are no passports or travel documents for Haudenosaunee people to travel in the US or Canada.

O:nen

Are you sure that's true? If you get into trouble abroad, who's embassy do you run to? Or do you have those too?