Indigenous rights and titles

[mister_v]

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?

The Six Nations is something akin to a special type of municipality due to the Simcoe Deed, where special processes have to be maintained regarding land surrenders. Its simply a matter of who represents the municipality; traditional Confederacy leaders or band council, who cares: its the claim of sovereignty that doesn't hold water. Canadian law applies to those in Ohsweken as well as those in Caledonia, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, etc.

Unless, by mentioning the existence of the Confederacy, you are trying to suggest that, say, the Senecas in New York State have some sort of say over land claims being made by the Six Nations of the Grand River in Canada?

BTW, I went to Darien Lake a couple summers ago. I was able to cross the border too and simply on the basis of telling the customs officer where I am from, no ID required. I must have one of those trustworthy faces. Pretty sly for a white guy

[Okwaho]

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?

The Six Nations is something akin to a special type of municipality due to the Simcoe Deed, where special processes have to be maintained regarding land surrenders. Its simply a matter of who represents the municipality; traditional Confederacy leaders or band council, who cares: its the claim of sovereignty that doesn't hold water. Canadian law applies to those in Ohsweken as well as those in Caledonia, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, etc.

Unless, by mentioning the existence of the Confederacy, you are trying to suggest that, say, the Senecas in New York State have some sort of say over land claims being made by the Six Nations of the Grand River in Canada?

BTW, I went to Darien Lake a couple summers ago. I was able to cross the border too and simply on the basis of telling the customs officer where I am from, no ID required. I must have one of those trustworthy faces. Pretty sly for a white guy

So did you tell him you were Rotinonshonni?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

If you tried to cross the border today, you would need a valid birth certificate. By 2008 it will be a passport. However, you are subject to duty restrictions. We are not. They even have a fast "Indian Lane" for us at Akwesasne.

No British law, nor Canadian Law has an effect on us. It affects YOU and you must always read it with that in mind. Your problem is you have assumed and concluded we are Canadians and therefore subjects of the laws. We are not, and so the laws are not relevent.

In discussing the issues of land autonomy, we only use the the Haldimand proclamation and the Royal Proclamatin (and its daughter - Sect. 25 & 35 of the charter) to illustrate the intent of the Crown that is consistent with our oral and written histories. We have never entered into Crown rule, nor will we. We remain sovereign and autonomous.

O:nen

[Chuck U. Farlie]

So what if you try to enter Russia, China, or any of the 200+ countries out there other than USA?

Do you use a Canadian passport? Do you tell the immigration officer that you are Canadian?

If you do so, aren't you contradicting your beliefs?

I do not believe for one minute that you could enter any country other than the USA by claiming you are Haudenosaunee or whatever it is.

And I have other news for you... any person of any nationality (other than diplomats) are subject to the laws of the land they are in.

If I smuggle drugs into Indonesia, I get the firing squad just like an Indonesian.

If you murder someone in Toronto, no doubt you will be tried and sentenced just like I would - therefore you are everybit as subject to Canadian law as anyone else is.

[Okwaho]

So what if you try to enter Russia, China, or any of the 200+ countries out there other than USA?

Do you use a Canadian passport? Do you tell the immigration officer that you are Canadian?

If you do so, aren't you contradicting your beliefs?

I do not believe for one minute that you could enter any country other than the USA by claiming you are Haudenosaunee or whatever it is.

I was just in Lithuania last september. Not a problem! We have our own passports. If you look at the Time Life Native American series Vol. with the Iroquois there's a photo of one with all of the perticulars in it.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

.....are subject to the laws of the land they are in.

If you come to Kayenke' or Six Nations or Akwesasne, you will be subject to our laws as well, although we are much more tolerant than Canadians.

O:nen

[skyclad]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 came about because of the native themselves selling vast tracts of land to settlers as they arrived overseas from Europe.

Even when Brant got the the right to live in the Haldimand tract in 1784, from 1784 to 1841, Brant, Hill and others were selling vast portions as fast as they could. A sale of 10,000 acres in the Fergus area was sold to one person in that time period.

[Okwaho]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 came about because of the native themselves selling vast tracts of land to settlers as they arrived overseas from Europe.

Even when Brant got the the right to live in the Haldimand tract in 1784, from 1784 to 1841, Brant, Hill and others were selling vast portions as fast as they could. A sale of 10,000 acres in the Fergus area was sold to one person in that time period.

I've already posted this on another thread. The Royal Proclamation Act was the catalyst for the American Revolutionary war specifically because it forbade western expansion. It came about to prevent westward settlement.

[bearcat]

the haudenosaunee confederacy, as a nation issues its own passports

[Riverwind]

the haudenosaunee confederacy, as a nation issues its own passports

So does Disney World - doesn't mean much.

http://www.akwesasnephoenix.com/index_files/Page1243.html

Third problem is some people have Haudenosaunee passports, red cards and they are neither recognized by the US, Canada or even by the MCK.

[mister_v]

I've already posted this on another thread. The Royal Proclamation Act was the catalyst for the American Revolutionary war specifically because it forbade western expansion. It came about to prevent westward settlement.

You forgot to mention that I corrected you in that thread. The Proclamation was set to make any westward expansion of the colonies happen in an orderly fashion. It did not specify a permanent boundary. It simply indicated that any Indian land must first be ceded to agents of the Crown before it could be used by colonists. Nothing more, nothing less. Expansion was not forbidden, it was simply placed under guidelines.

The influence of the Proclamation as one of the reasons for the American Revolution is questionable. There were significant Indian land surrenders after the Proclamation but before the start of the Revolution which opened up Kentucky and West Virginia to settlement, placating the colonists and reducing any tensions arising from the Proclamation.

[Okwaho]

I've already posted this on another thread. The Royal Proclamation Act was the catalyst for the American Revolutionary war specifically because it forbade western expansion. It came about to prevent westward settlement.

You forgot to mention that I corrected you in that thread. The Proclamation was set to make any westward expansion of the colonies happen in an orderly fashion. It did not specify a permanent boundary. It simply indicated that any Indian land must first be ceded to agents of the Crown before it could be used by colonists. Nothing more, nothing less. Expansion was not forbidden, it was simply placed under guidelines.

The influence of the Proclamation as one of the reasons for the American Revolution is questionable. There were significant Indian land surrenders after the Proclamation but before the start of the Revolution which opened up Kentucky and West Virginia to settlement, placating the colonists and reducing any tensions arising from the Proclamation.

The boundries are set out and are in fact quite clear! You must be reading from a partial copy. It was considered the worst of the "Intolerable Acts".

[mister_v]

The boundries are set out and are in fact quite clear! You must be reading from a partial copy. It was considered the worst of the "Intolerable Acts".

You must have trouble reading, it specified a boundary but by the wording in the Proclamation, nothing about that boundary was permanent along the lines of "this is where the boundary will be now and forever". The Proclamation dictated guidelines under which the westward expansion of the colonies could occur (only through land surrenders to the Crown by the Indians). This is fact.

[skyclad]

Passports hmmm

Was on the Six Nations reserve near Caledonia about 2 weeks ago, must of missed teh passport office nobody asked me for a passport, me the big white guy, blond hair, no passport, no problemo

[Okwaho]

The boundries are set out and are in fact quite clear! You must be reading from a partial copy. It was considered the worst of the "Intolerable Acts".

You must have trouble reading, it specified a boundary but by the wording in the Proclamation, nothing about that boundary was permanent along the lines of "this is where the boundary will be now and forever". The Proclamation dictated guidelines under which the westward expansion of the colonies could occur (only through land surrenders to the Crown by the Indians). This is fact.

There's nothing wrong with my reading. It must be your lack of command and comprehension of the english language. As I've said...it's quite clear what it is conveyed and the domestic court system knows it. The Protection clause is the Crown saying to their Subjects that its friends and allies are to be protected by the Crown from its Subjects! If the context was meant as you're attempting to twist it, the land surrenders to the Crown by the Indians wouldn't be an issue. If we were subjects the land would be Crown land.

[Riverwind]

There's nothing wrong with my reading. It must be your lack of command and comprehension of the english language. As I've said...it's quite clear what it is conveyed and the domestic court system knows it.

That is not how I read it:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

This paragraph clearly states that it is the Indians who are under the protection of the crown and that the Indian territories are part of the Crown's domain.

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments

Once again the wording is quite clear: the Crown is sovereign power and the lands granted to the Indians belongs to the Crown's Dominion.

[Okwaho]

I've already posted this on another thread. The Royal Proclamation Act was the catalyst for the American Revolutionary war specifically because it forbade western expansion. It came about to prevent westward settlement.

You forgot to mention that I corrected you in that thread. The Proclamation was set to make any westward expansion of the colonies happen in an orderly fashion. It did not specify a permanent boundary. It simply indicated that any Indian land must first be ceded to agents of the Crown before it could be used by colonists. Nothing more, nothing less. Expansion was not forbidden, it was simply placed under guidelines.

The influence of the Proclamation as one of the reasons for the American Revolution is questionable. There were significant Indian land surrenders after the Proclamation but before the start of the Revolution which opened up Kentucky and West Virginia to settlement, placating the colonists and reducing any tensions arising from the Proclamation.

You might want to ask the Deleware, Mingo and Shawnee about that!

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

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?

Because the agreement represented by The Two Row Wampum states, that the monies paid by the Crown to provide upkeep is in effect a lease of the land, as well with the stipulation that each Nation would stay in their own canoes - meaning they would totally stay out of eachothers way and possibly behave as allies in times of trouble. Which the Native side has lived up to past and present.

So i suppose it could be argued that if this lease stops being paid, someone is moving....

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?

I think I already at least partially answered the two above questions with my initial remarks. But on the issue of payouts etc. Im going to have to say that the books are going to have to be balanced and it will be more difficult the longer these things drag on. In a lot of these cases we hear about a lease or bill of sale being produced which are all totally legal. Although... One stumbling block is the issue of payment for these sales and leases, proof of payment must be provided to validate any of these land agreements. Im still looking for any actual information on the payment end of this debate - so i welcome any links anyone can provide.

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?

Determining who indeed is squatting is the crux of this whole situation in Caledonia. The fact that the judge issuing these orders has a clear conflict of interest in this case aside ( he owns acreage within the Haldimand Tract ) The province has purchased the land in question and is holding the land in trust for Six Nations. It is my understanding that the land will be returned when the current negotiations conclude. So it kind of makes logical sense the judge would try to stall these negotiations,( he ordered negotiations to be halted ) further drawing out the jurisdictional grey area, and try to get his 2nd order of removal enforced. To be honest the judge seems to be acting like his ego has been wounded and is doing everything in his power to extract some measure of satisfaction for himself. ( On a side note the Provincial Government has opposed his ruling and has clearly stated the negotiations will continue later this month, also CHCH-TV a local television station has received a letter from Minister of Indian Affairs David Ramsay expressing his dissapointment with the biased reporting from the media there. ) When the title is returned, in effect saying that the land should never have been illegally sold... this makes the basis of the court order invalid, unless hes going to start evicting people their own properties. If the order is enforced and the people are removed, then later on down the road the land reverts back - will the orders of the judge be actionable by Six Nations? I would think so - especailly taking into account the violence that will take place in that removal.

[yam]

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!

The only thing im perplexed about here is the blanketting term "aboriginal". These undergo many contradictions concerning actual and real rights. However, since we are speaking treatise and rights that have already been established all is well and good for the six nations (though a pity the term six nations was not used).

The reason i bring this up is because of the metis situation. Apparently, they did not sign treatise BUT did have "proclamations and agreements". . .However today, despite such being mapped out in this charter are not recognised as valid and fall into protective custody as it were.

im hoping that six nations will not be caught out here too. And that the weight of having a treaty supercedes " . . . or other rights or freedoms . . . " as kind of debateable regardless of the problem in interpretation of proclamations and agreements.

[deirdrie]

natives support hezbollah

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/news/terroristthreat.html

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Passports hmmm

Was on the Six Nations reserve near Caledonia about 2 weeks ago, must of missed teh passport office nobody asked me for a passport, me the big white guy, blond hair, no passport, no problemo

Because they welcome vistors from allied Nations, in the same way I cross the border into Buffalo...

no problemo.

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Seems like the protest is a mish mash. Some say they wouldn't follow clan mothers.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Because they welcome vistors from allied Nations, in the same way I cross the border into Buffalo...

no problemo.

How did they know he was from an allied nation without checking a passport?

[Okwaho]

There's nothing wrong with my reading. It must be your lack of command and comprehension of the english language. As I've said...it's quite clear what it is conveyed and the domestic court system knows it.

That is not how I read it:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

This paragraph clearly states that it is the Indians who are under the protection of the crown and that the Indian territories are part of the Crown's domain.

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments

Once again the wording is quite clear: the Crown is sovereign power and the lands granted to the Indians belongs to the Crown's Dominion.

No...It clearly states that being immediately after the French-Indian War that the Crown is claiming their sovereignty over their previous territories and those acquired in the defeat of the French. Why would the land need to be ceded to or purchased if it is sovereign Crown land? Why would they Crown have settlers removed from the Indian Territory if it was Crown land? You see…you need to read the entire Proclamation and stop taking parts of it out of context. This is also why it is important to know the historical aspects.

Take a look at what the Americans have to say about it. It even has a map detailing the territories and boundries (that supposedly don't exsist) it referes to. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/proc63.htm

Let’s look at the Jay Treaty of the American Revolutionary War. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/jay.htm

It is agreed that it shall at all Times be free to His Majesty's Subjects, and to the Citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said Boundary Line freely to pass and repass by Land, or Inland Navigation, into the respective Territories and Countries of the Two Parties on the Continent of America (the Country within the Limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted) and to navigate all the Lakes, Rivers, and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other.

Notice it say His Majesty’s Subjects, and to the Citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said Boundary Line. Three separate distinct sovereigns.

What happened? I thought we were Crown sovereigns? The border was established to divide His Majesty’s Subjects and Citizens of the United States. It has no effect on us as we are neither.

[Okwaho]

natives support hezbollah

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/news/terroristthreat.html

PFFFTTTT! The National Enquirer of the internet?