Judge Slams Indian Actions

[Okwaho]

Your finally starting to learn something! Of course the government is going to find favor in themselves.

House of Commons Debates Third Session-Twenty-Twelfth Parliament, 4-5George V., 1914

Hon. Frank Oliver (Liberal MP):

But there are bands of the Six Nations Indians located on the Grand river in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any other Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand river had their original home in the United States. At the close of the war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it.

House of Commons Debates Fourth Session-Twenty-First Parliament, 15George VI, 1951

John Horne Blackmore (Conservative MP for Lethbridge) repeated Mr. Oliver's statement in the House of Commons.

I don't have a link so doubters will have to look them up at your local library.

In 1914 and in 1951, the 'holding' of Six Nations would have been recognized as the current lands of the Six Nations reservation. I fail to see how these statements, made during a debate in the House of Commons, have anything to do with the land claims of additional territory that was apparently surrendered to the Crown in the 1840's...

No matter how much you wish to twist words and english definitions around you can't! Not only do these MPs from opposing political parties affirm our sovereignty (which according to someone was lost under the Haldimand and Royal Proclamations) they also mention the special treaty by which we were given lands. Both of these men speak of a "different legal position" infering that parliament is about to or hasbroken the law! Go back and read SickandTired! were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it. They're refering to the lands under the special treaty period! So yes it does have to do with not only the entire tract of land but all things Six Nations. I know S&T, you fail to see how anything has to do with anything when faced with facts that contradict interpretation.

[Riverwind]

No matter how much you wish to twist words and english definitions around you can't! Not only do these MPs from opposing political parties affirm our sovereignty (which according to someone was lost under the Haldimand and Royal Proclamations) they also mention the special treaty by which we were given lands.

Back bench MPs say many things in parliment that have no connection with reality. If all you have to back up your claim is statements made by a few MPs then you don't really have anything.

[Okwaho]

No matter how much you wish to twist words and english definitions around you can't! Not only do these MPs from opposing political parties affirm our sovereignty (which according to someone was lost under the Haldimand and Royal Proclamations) they also mention the special treaty by which we were given lands.

Back bench MPs say many things in parliment that have no connection with reality. If all you have to back up your claim is statements made by a few MPs then you don't really have anything.

You have proven my conclusion that there really is no such thing as "equality" in your society! I guess those MPs were just racists.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Whether or not those MP's were racist I cannot say, they may have been I guess. Putting that aside I found a real question to be answered. Were the natives allies or citizens? As allies, they have no real right to the land in question, as citizens they do. As allies they may have possession of the land in the form of a lease, this was the track record of the British Empire at the time, they did not give away the lands. In fact the British were very fond of leases, use Hong Kong for a very example.

I think that the real discussion here ought to be whether or not these American immigrants can actually lay claim to lands that were clearly not their own to start with. You see this really isn't a case of giving them their land back at all. It isn't a reclaimation of land either. This land was never really theirs until it was given to them by the crown in the first place. What the crown gives it can take away. This exercise in research is proving to be enlightening to say the least.

[scribblet]

I have tried and failed to find the evidence that supports native claim to the lands in question. From what I have found it was in fact given to the government of the day by six native chiefs of supposedly the six native nations. The seems to be some dispute as to the credentials of these individuals by the natives, but that does not alter the fact that the government did in fact recognize these people as the representatives of the natives. These people had previous dealings with the government at a time when they were recognized by their own people as leaders capable of exercising authority in the behalf.

Now I am more than willing to change my mind, but I will need to see evidence from a credible source that is clearly definitive.

The interesting thing I find is that the government of Ontario and Canada has already stated it's position in 1995 on the Plank Road Lands (of which Douglas Creek is part of) in their answer to the claims made by Six Nations...This is the section from that statement that deals with the Plank Road lands...

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

I would also like to see and hear what the reasons are that surrenders are not valid and also whether the government has changed is position from their 1995 Statement of Defence. I guess everyone will continue to have to wait and see...

I think we would all like to hear this as it seemed clear to all that the land had been surrendered, all evidence pointed to that. There is a scan of a document here:

http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/9194...dcd486bf67d6585

http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView?id=f...play=91942+0179

more links here; http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/Documentation_History.htm

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

This land was never really theirs until it was given to them by the crown in the first place.

Wrong! There are archaeological records of Haudenosaunee Confederacy occupation of the north shores of Erie, Ontario and St Lawrence to Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe Trent River and Ottawa River that date better than 1000 years ago. Our occupation never cease.

A "proclamation" doesn't sell land, it recognizes it!

O:nen

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So your people were not the ones that emmigrated from the United States that were granted these lands under the Proclaimation?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Our people returned to re-occupy our north shore lands after about a 40 year hiatus. The Mississaugas were here only by our treaty agreement with them and when we had indicated our return about 5 years before the trip, most of them returned to their North Shore of Superior homelands. The British offered the few remaining bands a free trip home. There was never any sale, or purchase from the Mississaugas by the British on our behalf. That's silly.

We still hold the Two Spoons One Bowl Wampum treaty with the Mississaugas that allow either to live and hunt in each other's territory. As late as the 1600's many of our people co-habitated in villages along the lake shores with our Mississauga cousins and intermarried such that our nations were joined by families. Even today you will find common names shared between many Haudenosaunee and the Mississaugas living in the same territories that we did way back when.

The land has always been ours and will always be ours "as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow".

O:nen

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Your response indicates an abandonment of territory by your own words. You neglect to mention that the entire arguement you have formed on this thread is clearly attached to a land claim stemming from natives moving to that location from the United States as documented in the Proclaimation which you are stating is the definitive entitlement to the land in the first place.

Now what is it Tsi? You can't have your cake and eat it too, things just don't work that way in the reality of the world. Either your group of people were granted this land as a result of a settlement between the new United States Government and the Crown or not. Please define you position clearly here.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

No abandonment. We put the land in control of our Mississauga cousins 40 years previous at a ceremony at Taiagon (Toronto). It was recorded by the British and witnessed in a trader's journal. At the same ceremony, the Mississaugas joined the Covanent Chain with the British and our ancestors as witnesses.

When we returned, our ancestors brought many from the Mohawk valley with them (via Kanehse'take). Those whose home was in the south (with Joseph Brant) were in fear of retaliation for siding with the British in the AM. Rev. as well as becoming tired of the broken promises and treaties that we suppose to protect them from expansion. Many ended up staying in the south and Brant led people here to already established Haudenosaunee villages and homeland.

There was no "grant" or "purchase" Read the Proclamation! It was a recognition of our sovereign lands and a vow to prevent the same kind of encroachment that happened in the US. The Crown had no hold over the land and recognized that fact in the Royal Proclamation 1763.

These things are all consistent and clear. What is not consistent is that The Crown ever held title over ANY of Canada. The Hudson Bay purchase was merely a transfer of sales territory - much like Fuller Brush company might purchase the exclusive rights to market a product from Amway....... All the lands set out by the Royal Proclamation and treaties only cover settlers sharing the lands for their livelyhood and resource rights were maintained under the control of the First Nations.

O:nen

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Interesting point. However the simple truth is that the land was taken by sword point and colonized by brute force. The thinking at the time was to the victor go the spoils. One part of the Proclaimation does interest me;

"We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government, they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do, by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever, provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside, and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit, by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade:

And we do hereby authorize, enjoin, and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our Colonies respectively, as well those under Our immediate Government as those under the Government and Direction of Proprietaries, to grant such Licences without Fee or Reward, taking especial Care to insert therein a Condition, that such Licence shall be void, and the Security forfeited in case the Person to whom the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to observe such Regulations as We shall think proper to prescribe as aforesaid."

According to this portion of the proclaimation, the land could be sold to the crown or its appointees by the "Indians", is that how you read and understand it?

[SickandTired]

No matter how much you wish to twist words and english definitions around you can't! Not only do these MPs from opposing political parties affirm our sovereignty (which according to someone was lost under the Haldimand and Royal Proclamations) they also mention the special treaty by which we were given lands. Both of these men speak of a "different legal position" infering that parliament is about to or hasbroken the law! Go back and read SickandTired! were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it. They're refering to the lands under the special treaty period! So yes it does have to do with not only the entire tract of land but all things Six Nations. I know S&T, you fail to see how anything has to do with anything when faced with facts that contradict interpretation.

You are taking the words of a couple of politicians who spoke something in a house of commons debate as supporting evidence for a position? Have you watched a debate in parliament? Politicians spout all kinds of rhetoric. Not much of a basis for an argument. And you accuse me of ignoring facts...

I prefer court rulings myself as per the rule of law. Perhaps like this court ruling where the Haldimand Proclamation is described as a DEED and not a TREATY. Of course, no elected politician arose from his seat in the parliament and proclaimed this as fact in a debate, so it must be suspect....

http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol05/261.html

Constitutional Law II--Indians--Statutory provision for surrender of part of Indian Reserve-- Whether competent for Dominion to interfere with internal self government of Indian band--Haldimand Deed--Simcoe Deed--

and...

The Parliament of Canada has legislative authority under s. 91(24) of the B.N.A. Act to provide for the surrender of reserved Indian lands, even though this be done by a method which interferes with the system of internal government of Indian bands by hereditary chiefs. Members of the Six Nations Indians who settled on reserved land conveyed by the Haldimand Deed of October 25,1784 (sometimes called the Haldimand Treaty), a transfer confirmed by the Simcoe Deed of January 14, 1793, did so under the protection of the Crown, and they and their posterity consequently owed allegiance to the Crown, becoming subjects thereof. It cannot therefore be contended that they are immune from the competent laws of Canada, however unfair or unjust it may be in particular circumstances to interfere with their traditional system of internal government.

and...

-----By His Excellency's Command-----

It should be noted that the foregoing document is a deed and is not in any sense a treaty although in the course of the evidence it was referred to as the Haldimand Treaty from time to time.

[geoffrey]

Interesting point. However the simple truth is that the land was taken by sword point and colonized by brute force. The thinking at the time was to the victor go the spoils. One part of the Proclaimation does interest me...

What are you talking about, in Canada we didn't fight our Indians, they sold their land instead.

[Okwaho]

She:kon!

No abandonment. We put the land in control of our Mississauga cousins 40 years previous at a ceremony at Taiagon (Toronto). It was recorded by the British and witnessed in a trader's journal. At the same ceremony, the Mississaugas joined the Covanent Chain with the British and our ancestors as witnesses.

When we returned, our ancestors brought many from the Mohawk valley with them (via Kanehse'take). Those whose home was in the south (with Joseph Brant) were in fear of retaliation for siding with the British in the AM. Rev. as well as becoming tired of the broken promises and treaties that we suppose to protect them from expansion. Many ended up staying in the south and Brant led people here to already established Haudenosaunee villages and homeland.

There was no "grant" or "purchase" Read the Proclamation! It was a recognition of our sovereign lands and a vow to prevent the same kind of encroachment that happened in the US. The Crown had no hold over the land and recognized that fact in the Royal Proclamation 1763.

These things are all consistent and clear. What is not consistent is that The Crown ever held title over ANY of Canada. The Hudson Bay purchase was merely a transfer of sales territory - much like Fuller Brush company might purchase the exclusive rights to market a product from Amway....... All the lands set out by the Royal Proclamation and treaties only cover settlers sharing the lands for their livelyhood and resource rights were maintained under the control of the First Nations.

O:nen

Tsi, don't give too much away. I'm waiting for our geniuses to discover the history backwards from here.

[skyclad]

Cousins or not, the Mississaugas sold the land to an agent of the crown, Butler.

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/puc/puc4.html

[skyclad]

The mississaugas were Chippewas which are also known as Obijwe, which came from the Algonkin group of people, which hated the Five/Six Nation, they were not cousins

here is a link

http://www.tolatsga.org/ojib.html

The algonkins (Chippewas,Obijwe) drove the Mohawks and other Six nations out of Montreal area about 1000 years ago.

The Five/Six nations moved to the finger lakes and decimated the small tribes living there.

[NativeCharm]

I don't know what they are teaching in grade schools these days, but this is what I wish would have been available as Canadian/ Native history when I was in school. Instead of this thanksgiving it's pocahontas crap.

[skyclad]

The Ontario Prov is going back to court on the Caledonia issue, to ask for stay of execution to allow negotations to continue while still awaiting to appeal the judges order comply.

[geoffrey]

The Ontario Prov is going back to court on the Caledonia issue, to ask for stay of execution to allow negotations to continue while still awaiting to appeal the judges order comply.

Does McGuinty really lack political capital that much? I wonder what the Ontario voters who are more than ticked with this lawlessness will do next election.

I'd vote for anyone that promised to restore justice and law to society. Democracy can't exist without it.

I am more satisfied everyday that I left that province. You can't even trust the police to enforce the laws anymore. What a shame.

[Argus]

The Ontario Prov is going back to court on the Caledonia issue, to ask for stay of execution to allow negotations to continue while still awaiting to appeal the judges order comply.

Yes, it's called "We have no idea what to do so let's go to court in hopes we can keep delaying things".

[Argus]

The Ontario Prov is going back to court on the Caledonia issue, to ask for stay of execution to allow negotations to continue while still awaiting to appeal the judges order comply.

Does McGuinty really lack political capital that much?

McGuinty is a political coward, a dishonest, wishy-washy man who never made a decision in his life without asking a hundred people what to do and then delaying as long as possible. He is unquestionably the weakest leader in Ontario's history. It is an embarrassment to me that this -- nobody, this dull, unimaginative, craven, useless, humourless ballless wonder managed to get himself elected to office.

I wonder what the Ontario voters who are more than ticked with this lawlessness will do next election.

Most have no idea it is even going on. Remember that Ontario is the heart and soul of political correctness, and the major media here zealously pursue the theme that whenever anything goes wrong with regard to natives it's the governments fault. Natives, after all, are like children, innocent, free-spirited, something like dolphins, but slightly smarter and with cuter outfits. How could they possibly do anything wrong?

[jdobbin]

McGuinty is a political coward, a dishonest, wishy-washy man who never made a decision in his life without asking a hundred people what to do and then delaying as long as possible. He is unquestionably the weakest leader in Ontario's history. It is an embarrassment to me that this -- nobody, this dull, unimaginative, craven, useless, humourless ballless wonder managed to get himself elected to office.

Most have no idea it is even going on. Remember that Ontario is the heart and soul of political correctness, and the major media here zealously pursue the theme that whenever anything goes wrong with regard to natives it's the governments fault. Natives, after all, are like children, innocent, free-spirited, something like dolphins, but slightly smarter and with cuter outfits. How could they possibly do anything wrong?

The federal government is part of the negotiations. Harper could send in the army. Land claims are a federal responsibility.

[skyclad]

Has the Caledonia incident exposed how weak democrarcy is,

Would it be better to have an absolute monarch deal with this, a monarch would not have to worry about public pressure or popularity. And could deal with this rapidly and decisive, at the moment, McQuinty is running a 3 ring circus, with nothing happening.

No, I'm not suggesting we go back to a absolute monarch situation.

[Live From China]

This is an extremely tough situation, and I certainly don't want violence to erupt. However, when guys like Joe Whatever His Last Name Is shoots off his mouth and proclaims that the only way he is leaving is in a body bag, I know this is nothing more than "big brave talk!" Joe knows very well that if the army was sent in with "permission to engage", he would be running for the next hill! As would most of the protesters.

The Romans used to have a saying: "Bravery increases with distance!"

[Okwaho]

My racism?????

Ha that's a laugh. I'm saying everyone should be equal.

You are the ones saying that a certain group deserves something because their race entitles them to it.

Are people with disabilities given special treatment as compared to people that are not disabled?

Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?

Your equality argument is more and more becoming an illusion rather than a reality!