Freedom Of Speech,An Iroquoian Tradition

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Whether people were in NA 50000 years ago or 15000 years ago is irrelevant.

Who was where when is irrelevant.

Answer these questions, oh great one!

1) Provide an image of a Six Nations passport

2) Provide a list of countries that recognise Six Nations passports as valid travel documents

3) State in who's name Six Nations passports are issued

4) Why are First Nations peoples subject to Canadian law and tried in Canadian courts?

5) Why are First Nations reserves and programmes supported by Canadian tax dollars?

6) Why is there a Minister of Indian Affairs to advise the Crown?

7) Why are there no Canada Customs agents or border guards at the entrance/exits to Native reserves?

8) Who is the Six Nations Ambassador to Canada? (I assume he'd be an ambassador as a sovereign Six Nations wouldn't be part of the Commonwealth)

9) Who is the Canadian Ambassador to Six Nations?

10) Why is Six Nations not represented at the UN?

I looked through your links... they do not provide the answers. When I mentioned this before all Okwahu said was "Well it proves our passport exists!".... sorry, not good enough.

Do you have answers or not?

[jbg]

People, remember the words of wisdom from a great leader of a great democracy:

"A proof is a proof".

[yam]

She:kon!

Let me try to provide the condensed version.......

".....and it is to do with the role of chief (whom has been selected by family ties)."

Royaner are not selcted along "family ties". The are selected to represent the Clan by the Clan Mother. He must be married. So here's the twist.........People cannot marry within their clans, so all the men in a particular clan belong to other clans.

Us Mohawks have 3 clans in our Nation. So a Women from the Turtle Clan must marry someone from the Wolf or Bear Clans. Her husband comes to live with her Clan...family... and retains his clan. All the children will aquire the woman's clan. So the Royaner to be select is actually not from the Longhouse Clan which he represents. In order for him to retain his status as Royaner, he must represent the Clan he is selected to represent. If he doesn't the Clan Mother can impeach him instantly and replace him with another Royaner.

Each clan has 3 Royaner to represent them at Council. So at any one time no Royaner can hijack the position and pursue his own private interests. There ar many checks and balances in the system to prevent such things from occurring. And the 3 Royaner and Clan Mother ensure that decisions reached by the community consensus are relayed to Council who then seek consensus among themselves and return the results back to each clan for further consideration or ratification.

O:nen

[yam]

She:kon!

Let me try to provide the condensed version.......

".....and it is to do with the role of chief (whom has been selected by family ties)."

Royaner are not selcted along "family ties". The are selected to represent the Clan by the Clan Mother. He must be married. So here's the twist.........People cannot marry within their clans, so all the men in a particular clan belong to other clans.

Us Mohawks have 3 clans in our Nation. So a Women from the Turtle Clan must marry someone from the Wolf or Bear Clans. Her husband comes to live with her Clan...family... and retains his clan. All the children will aquire the woman's clan. So the Royaner to be select is actually not from the Longhouse Clan which he represents. In order for him to retain his status as Royaner, he must represent the Clan he is selected to represent. If he doesn't the Clan Mother can impeach him instantly and replace him with another Royaner.

Each clan has 3 Royaner to represent them at Council. So at any one time no Royaner can hijack the position and pursue his own private interests. There ar many checks and balances in the system to prevent such things from occurring. And the 3 Royaner and Clan Mother ensure that decisions reached by the community consensus are relayed to Council who then seek consensus among themselves and return the results back to each clan for further consideration or ratification.

O:nen

OK - so the Royaner . . . chief? . . . is outside and neutral until he marries a mohawk woman then he has to represent the whole community to which he has married into? What about his own that he may be leaving for the clan mother mohawk? perhaps he is not leaving but uniting?

Darn your piece is very elusive (well done ). However i still wish to get my head around it accurately - tomorrow maybe! There is a reason why i ask. And it is to do with the clan mother system and the cree nation. This does `not seem as promising as the mohawk clan mother system (so far as i know in dealing with dodgy leadership to put it extremely crudely).

Maybe too much too engage with over a forum when you've got caladonia to wrestle with right this`minute

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The Royaner are not like traditinal ciefs in other nations. They do no speak for the people. Instead they would be best described as older brothers to the Clan. As the eldest sons, they demonstrate respect for the Clan Mother and guide the other sons and daughters in living right and in keeping a good mind. Because they are outside of the Clan originally and only come by marriage, they also consider the other clan houses - the community at large - in their deliberations. That not only helps them keep a balanced view of the issues being discussed but being from another clan they can empathize and help the others find the peace of mind needed in resolving their differences.

In our society everyone has ~something~ they are good at that contributes to the community. This is often recognized in their names. So when a potential Royaner is watched the mothers look for attributes that will make them better representatives. As they marry, they are watched to see if they are good and caring husbands and fathers. They are noted for their ability to resolve stressful situations. When a vacancy comes up ( the position is granted for life...but in modern times a few Royaner have chosen to retire the position) the best candidate will be asked to filled the position. It is not mandatory but it is a great honour to be selected. They are the real and true sevants of the people.

No Royaner can wear the title to his death and so the official name of the Ryoaner (position in the Council) is passed on to the one replacing him. We then conduct a "condolence" so that a new Royaner can be elevated into the position.

O:nen

[Okwaho]

Whether people were in NA 50000 years ago or 15000 years ago is irrelevant.

Who was where when is irrelevant.

Answer these questions, oh great one!

1) Provide an image of a Six Nations passport

2) Provide a list of countries that recognise Six Nations passports as valid travel documents

3) State in who's name Six Nations passports are issued

4) Why are First Nations peoples subject to Canadian law and tried in Canadian courts?

5) Why are First Nations reserves and programmes supported by Canadian tax dollars?

6) Why is there a Minister of Indian Affairs to advise the Crown?

7) Why are there no Canada Customs agents or border guards at the entrance/exits to Native reserves?

8) Who is the Six Nations Ambassador to Canada? (I assume he'd be an ambassador as a sovereign Six Nations wouldn't be part of the Commonwealth)

9) Who is the Canadian Ambassador to Six Nations?

10) Why is Six Nations not represented at the UN?

I looked through your links... they do not provide the answers. When I mentioned this before all Okwahu said was "Well it proves our passport exists!".... sorry, not good enough.

Do you have answers or not?

1) Here you go smart a$$!!! http://kahnienkehka.blogspot.com/

2) Here's 18 of the 36 countries. Since we all haven't been to every one of the 36 I'm trying to find out who's been where and adding them to the list. Switzerland, Australia, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Chile, New Zealand, Norway, Germany, Italy, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Netherlands, Belgium, Lithuania, Ireland, Dominican republic. You can pass this on to the rest of your doubters in denial although I'm sure it won't be able to pass your standards of scrutiny as nothing does!

3) The passports are issued in the name of the individual applying obviously!

4) I believe the term is political prisoners!

5) We have no control over what your government does with your tax dollars! You'll have to ask them. However, they are probably using them for the lands that were properly sold or leased.

6) The Minister of Indian Affairs is an illegal position implemented by your government in order to side step the original agreements between our Nations. Sort of like a Superior Court Judge thinking he is above the Atorney General...you know. See 9).

7) You'll have to ask your government that question as we do not have any authority over Canadas policies on their Customs agency.

8) It is the Confederacy as it always has been. In the current matter it is Chief Tekarihoka aka Allan McNaughton.

9) The Governor General as it has always been.

10) You'll have to ask them. Not all countries are represented in the UN anyway.

There you have it wise guy!!!

Hope it answers all your questions because this merry-go-round is getting old.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon! Okwaho

Hao ki wahi tanon nya:wen'kowa kyase'

O:nen.

[yam]

She:kon!

The Royaner are not like traditinal ciefs in other nations. They do no speak for the people. Instead they would be best described as older brothers to the Clan. As the eldest sons, they demonstrate respect for the Clan Mother and guide the other sons and daughters in living right and in keeping a good mind. Because they are outside of the Clan originally and only come by marriage, they also consider the other clan houses - the community at large - in their deliberations. That not only helps them keep a balanced view of the issues being discussed but being from another clan they can empathize and help the others find the peace of mind needed in resolving their differences.

In our society everyone has ~something~ they are good at that contributes to the community. This is often recognized in their names. So when a potential Royaner is watched the mothers look for attributes that will make them better representatives. As they marry, they are watched to see if they are good and caring husbands and fathers. They are noted for their ability to resolve stressful situations. When a vacancy comes up ( the position is granted for life...but in modern times a few Royaner have chosen to retire the position) the best candidate will be asked to filled the position. It is not mandatory but it is a great honour to be selected. They are the real and true sevants of the people.

No Royaner can wear the title to his death and so the official name of the Ryoaner (position in the Council) is passed on to the one replacing him. We then conduct a "condolence" so that a new Royaner can be elevated into the position.

O:nen

This is pretty neat stuff.

I think that with 'modern' democracies of today it has allowed for a freedom choice not only to its cits but extending to those in power as to whether to be accountable or not!! Which is there downfall because they often choose not to be.

Now your Clan Mother System seems to be/is quite the contrary.

So it enables ALL to speak and thrash through issues - freely as a true democracy should do. Yet it also watches over, guards and protects within its own confines/laws. However, it sounds as if these laws are not restrictive but rather 'enabling'.

The responsibility is huge for the Royaners then. Im glad to see that they can bow out when necessary and that they have to always meet the criterea of the people.

You are seriously lucky.

Wish people would let you get on with it

[g_bambino]

1) Here you go smart a$$!!! http://kahnienkehka.blogspot.com/

2) Here's 18 of the 36 countries. Since we all haven't been to every one of the 36 I'm trying to find out who's been where and adding them to the list. Switzerland, Australia, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Chile, New Zealand, Norway, Germany, Italy, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Netherlands, Belgium, Lithuania, Ireland, Dominican republic. You can pass this on to the rest of your doubters in denial although I'm sure it won't be able to pass your standards of scrutiny as nothing does!

3) The passports are issued in the name of the individual applying obviously!

4) I believe the term is political prisoners!

5) We have no control over what your government does with your tax dollars! You'll have to ask them. However, they are probably using them for the lands that were properly sold or leased.

6) The Minister of Indian Affairs is an illegal position implemented by your government in order to side step the original agreements between our Nations. Sort of like a Superior Court Judge thinking he is above the Atorney General...you know. See 9).

7) You'll have to ask your government that question as we do not have any authority over Canadas policies on their Customs agency.

8) It is the Confederacy as it always has been. In the current matter it is Chief Tekarihoka aka Allan McNaughton.

9) The Governor General as it has always been.

10) You'll have to ask them. Not all countries are represented in the UN anyway.

There you have it wise guy!!!

Hope it answers all your questions because this merry-go-round is getting old.

Thank you for that; it's interesting to finally see a Six Nations passport. However, you should know that one does not write and issue one's own passport. Canadian passports are issued in the name of the Queen (read inside the front cover), so the question about in whose name the Haudenosaunee passports are issued remains unanswered.

Regardless, in all my searching of official immigration websites of some of the countries you listed, none of them mention Haudenosaunee passports as acceptable documentation for entry, or show any of the Six Nations as recognised foreign states. In fact, no First Nations territory is listed anywhere as a state, whether internationally regarded as one or not, or even as special entities like Hong Kong and Macau.

It's also interesting to note that neither Canada or the US recognises the Six Nations passports as valid:

National Identity, National Pride and National Institutions ...Some people have Haudenosaunee passports, red cards and they are neither recognized by the US, Canada or even by the MCK.

, as well as the point that the Canada/US border actually cuts through some Native reserves which were established prior to the US revolution, and First Nations people must present either Canadian or US identification to cross - right within their own reserve (Indian law scholars comment on proposed passport regulations) The presence of the border is never contested, merely the documentation required to cross it.

But, regardless, the acceptance of Haudenosaunee passports does not provide sufficient evidence that First Nations are sovereign entities, for the question still begs to be answered: if First Nations people are not citizens of Canada, how then can they apply for and be issued Canadian passports and other Canadian identification? The only way to obtain a Canadian passport is to be a Canadian citizen. The only way to become a Canadian citizen is to swear allegiance to the Queen and promise to obey her laws (when born here that allegiance is implicit). Therefore the logic is clear: if First Nations people can obtain Canadian passports they must be Canadian citizens, and thus they, and their lands, cannot be beyond the laws of Canada. And it cannot be argued that Natives can simply travel using only their First Nations passport - as Canada doesn't recognize these documents Native travelers would not be able to re-enter Canada using them. (They'd have to enter Canada too - as I assume no First Nations reserve has an international airport.)

Further, First Nations do indeed try to influence what "our" government does with our tax dollars - witness the Kelowna Accord: an attempt to funnel even more tax money towards First Nations, not for compensation or for lands properly sold, but simply to support infrastructure on Native reserves. First Nations ask for the money, Ottawa doesn't simply throw it at them. The First Nations leaders also appeal to the provincial premiers, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs (hardly an illegal position, as there are no rules as to who the Crown may seek advice from), or the Queen herself for assistance. Again, this does not speak of sovereignty. If First Nations were truly independent territories then Canada, being a foreign nation, would not be supplying those territories with water, electricity, education, health care, emergency services, or any of the other basic needs which independent countries supply for themselves or purchase - neither of which First Nations do.

I've never denied that there exists a special relationship between the First Nations and the Crown, set up through the treaties signed between chiefs and vice-regals, and which includes a certain amount of self-government, immunity from paying certain taxes, etc., etc. However, to insist that First Nations people are sovereign is assinine. First Nations exist as sub-nations, like Scotland, Catalonia, the Cook Islands, Quebec, or even Hong Kong. They each have their own government, and even culture and distinct language. However, none are sovereign as they are (in each of these cases willingly) subordinate to a higher level of government.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (now a law of the Canadian Crown) never ceded sovereignty to First Nations, and all lands were transferred from the French Crown to the British. In fact, it clearly states:

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... 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...[italics mine]

Later, the Constitution Act 1867 states, in "VI. Distribution of Legislative Powers":

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-- (24.) Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

It's therefore clear that, though First Nations may not be subordinate to the Canadian Government, nor can the Canadian Government sell reserved Native land without the consent of the Queen, First Nations remain subordinate to the Crown, and thus the Governor General is not an ambassador of Canada to the First Nations, but the representative of the Queen and her authority in all parts of Canada, including the Native reserves. However, as it clearly states in the Royal Proclamation, all acts of the Crown are on the advice of the Privy Council. Well, guess who makes up the top echelons of the PC. Yes, the Cabinet, meaning the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs, and so on and so forth.

Passports or not, you are not a sovereign people besides being sovereign Canadians.

[yam]

OK

Just a wee queston here you say "all acts by the crown is upon the "advice' of the PC.

This does not necessarily mean that the advice is a command? Advice implies to take into consideration things before a decision to act in a certain way ?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Your error in comprehension is that we are Six Nations - Haudenosaunee - not "First Nations" in general. Our soveriegnty is NOT given to us by the Crown but comes by right of preceeding the Crown's presence.

Once you correct your errors, then we'll discuss it further.

O:nen

[g_bambino]

OK

Just a wee queston here you say "all acts by the crown is upon the "advice' of the PC.

This does not necessarily mean that the advice is a command? Advice implies to take into consideration things before a decision to act in a certain way ?

Technically, no, the advice is not a command. The Queen retains the right to act beyond the advice of her ministers. However, convention dictates that in the absence of illegal advice, or some serious threat to the stability of government, she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister, and the other Ministers of the Cabinet, who are all accountable to the people through the elected House of Commons. That's the nature of constitutional monarchy.

[g_bambino]

She:kon!

Your error in comprehension is that we are Six Nations - Haudenosaunee - not "First Nations" in general. Our soveriegnty is NOT given to us by the Crown but comes by right of preceeding the Crown's presence.

Once you correct your errors, then we'll discuss it further.

O:nen

Six Nations are First Nations, are they not? I'm merely using the term First Nations in place of Indians - but I can use the latter if that's what you prefer, or is what is more accurate.

Still, according to the Royal Proclamation, evidently all Native lands fall under the sovereignty of the Crown - read the quotes again, and pay attention to what is highlighted in italics. Regardless of whether or not Six Nations preceed the presence of the Crown in North America, today Six Nations are within the Crown's sovereignty, not their own.

[geoffrey]

She:kon!

Your error in comprehension is that we are Six Nations - Haudenosaunee - not "First Nations" in general. Our soveriegnty is NOT given to us by the Crown but comes by right of preceeding the Crown's presence.

Once you correct your errors, then we'll discuss it further.

O:nen

Whoa hang on a second. So your sovereignty is what? God given?

[yam]

Indeed!

However SNs landownership issues do not comprise a threat to Canada - though it does imply a huge payout. Regardless of that for a mo . . .

Iv always had the impression that the Brits 'recognised' sns sovereignty and their occupied lands according to the royal proclaimation. Thus they and their land fall under the recognition and accountably of the royal proclamation as opposed to 'fallng under' its jurisdiction/rule so to speak.

And i thought that HOW it has been divided subsequently was the issue of contention because this proclamation has not been taken serously?

[geoffrey]

Indeed!

However SNs landownership issues do not comprise a threat to Canada - though it does imply a huge payout. Regardless of that for a mo . . .

Iv always had the impression that the Brits 'recognised' sns sovereignty and their occupied lands according to the royal proclaimation. Thus they and their land fall under the recognition and accountably of the royal proclamation as opposed to 'fallng under' its jurisdiction/rule so to speak.

And i thought that HOW it has been divided subsequently was the issue of contention because this proclamation has not been taken serously?

The payout is back to Canada though, right? I mean, all those Canadian welfare and pension dollars need to be returned ASAP, as well as their share of the national debt.

If they paid back all their welfare payments, we returned their tax dollars paid in, I'd be happy to see another burden on the Canadian social system gone. Have your sovereignty, just means less taxes going to the welfare and Indian Affairs. I certainly hope that you didn't expect all those transfers to continue after your 'seperation'?

[yam]

Im actually nether canadian or native.

In fact it is irrelevant what i am here. However; i can discuss how for example europeans have understood the issues since they would have read their history which does not exclude the colonised or otherwise.

Thus - this is not personal.

We are speaking of what has occured and how it occured. And who has got the correct information.

So to reiterate the question:

Does not the royal proclamation acknowledge their rights within its tracts of land ?

Thus recognised and respected as opposed to the ruling over . . .

And again - many of the international community think this is so

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Whoa hang on a second. So your sovereignty is what? God given?

Our sovereignty is "self-evident". We are not defined by the Crown like Canada is (which is not self-evident). OUr soveriengty is recognized by Canada in our present negotiations and has been recongized by the French, Britian, Canada and the US for the past 500 years. Of course the test of past soveriegnty being applicable in the present is to prove that at some time we capitulated. There is no such time where we ever became citizens of another sovereign. The Canadian myth abounds and so we are not talking about "First Nations" in this regard since every individual nation has their own definition of its relationship with the Crown. Our is (and has always been) clearly defined.

The Royal Proclamation does not claim all lands as sovereign. It sets aside "Indian Lnads" as being off-limits to British subjects and the law is ONLY applicible to British subjects (and now to Canadians as part of your Charter of Rights Nad Freedoms). BY the same token the Royal Proclamation holds no authority over the US and prior to Confederation there was little in the way of defined borders in the west. Canada has only advanced itself in defiance of the law and so when someone suggests that the "rule of law" is applicable, we can see very clearly that it isn't. In true sovereign fashion Crown law was only ever meant to be applied to citizens of the Crown.

It is also a myth that the Haldimand Tract came by way of the Crown. The tract was ours long before the Crown ever set foot in North America and continued to be ours long after. At one time most of our people moved to the south for a short period of time (about 50 years from approx. 1730 to 1780) but many more still continued to occupy the are in their absence. We have a earlier Treaty with the Mississaugas in about 1665 which allowed them to use our lands for hunting and fishing During our absence they are were quite aware of our intention to return. By the time we did return most of them (being forewarned of our return) had already moved back to their homelands north of Lake Superior. The few remaining Mississauga people that still lived in the tract were given a commission to move back to their traditional lands with their families. There was never any purchase or gift of the lands. We have been occupiers for 1000s of years. Just check out the local archeological soceity for more information......

So citing any British written law as proof of applicability is moot, since it was never intended to apply to us. It was and is, however intended to control you in our favour by keeping you away from us and our right to self-determination. What IS applicable is our oral history (which I have provided in small segments) which clearly not only defines our continuing title to the lands but to the reasons we demanded that the King prohibt you from settling in our territories.

O:nen

[g_bambino]

So to reiterate the question:

Does not the royal proclamation acknowledge their rights within its tracts of land ?

Thus recognised and respected as opposed to the ruling over . . .

And again - many of the international community think this is so

The Royal Proclamation affirms the First Nations right to those parts of the Crown's land that the Crown has set aside for them - hence, reserves. It also states that any purchases or ceeding of Native lands is the prerogative of the Crown alone.

This means the land belongs to the Crown, and thus Natives are subjects of the Crown and its laws (as reiterated in the Constitution Act 1867). So, specific rights and priveliges are recognised for First Nations peoples within the treaties, but the ultimate authority over them is the Crown.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

For the umteenth time I restate the reality for you.......

The payout is back to Canada though, right? I mean, all those Canadian welfare and pension dollars need to be returned ASAP, as well as their share of the national debt.

If they paid back all their welfare payments, we returned their tax dollars paid in, I'd be happy to see another burden on the Canadian social system gone. Have your sovereignty, just means less taxes going to the welfare and Indian Affairs. I certainly hope that you didn't expect all those transfers to continue after your 'seperation'?

1. Canada is responsible for a trust account it holds on behalf of Six nations worth about $30 billion dollars. The transfer payments we recieve (which includes the cost of health and welfare) does not even represent 1/2 of the interest on that $30 billion. By default Canada is going in the hole by about $100 million a year and by compunding interest the trust grows (to which Canada is responsible to pay back) by another billion every 6-7 years.

2. IF there is a financial settlement for the lands illegally occupied in the Haldimand Tract, then it will be substantial. By recent estimates the market value of those occupied lands exceeds $1 trillion dollars a sum that Canada could not begin to pay back without backrupting the treasury. The only option open to them for compensation would be to make a payment plan say over the next 100 years which no doubt would piss off the average Canadian because Six Nations would enjoy a higher standard of living....and well.....good luck for Indians tends to piss off the racists quite easily.....

3. What happens in settlements with individual nations across North America, is not part of this discussion. But if it was you would have to realize that most of northern Saskatchewan, all of Alberta and all of BC (with the excpetion of the recent treaties) is unceded indian territory (another fact backed by the Royal Proclamation). For the next 50 -100 years there are going to be some serious negotiations going on. And since Canadians have enjoyed prosperity and wealth off the resources, settlement and industrialization of there lands you can rest assured that there will be huge settlements which you will pay for in diminished services.

4. Taxation is YOUR problem since basically you have allowed the goverbnmetn to steal fomr you without opposition. We don't need to tax our people and are able to exist on about half of the budget that you require in your towns and cities. You could easily do without the taxes, and or the benefits from a huge tax base if someone were willing to take on the government. However, since the goal of governmetn is to redistribute the wealth, it seems that taxation benefits you as much as it burdens you.

I certainly hope that you didn't expect all those transfers to continue after your 'seperation'(sp.)?

No. We'll gladly take a check for $1.5 Trillion dollars and manage our own. Unfortunately for you, your government is trying to soften the blow by begging for a deal that will allow them to pay over time. Make no mistake. We are running the show, since we will never negotiate ourselves into a loss. Canada will, however, since they really have no choice.

O:nen

[g_bambino]

She:kon!

We are not defined by the Crown like Canada is (which is not self-evident). OUr soveriengty is recognized by Canada in our present negotiations and has been recongized by the French, Britian, Canada and the US for the past 500 years.

The Royal Proclamation makes it glaringly evident that your land belongs to the Crown; I don't know how else one could interpret the phrase "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..." That does say "reserve under our Sovereignty..." right?

It also evidently does define what lands are yours:

We do... 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, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

It sets aside "Indian Lnads" as being off-limits to British subjects and the law is ONLY applicible to British subjects (and now to Canadians as part of your Charter of Rights Nad Freedoms).

Yes, it states that British colonialists cannot purchase or claim Native land without the specific permission of the Monarch. But, no mention of the King granting Natives immunity from his laws is ever made.

Further, the Proclamation is referred to in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not included in it. The Proclamation remains a part of Canadian constitutional law - it is a law of the Crown. As subjects of the Crown (living under the sovereignty of the Crown on Crown land) the Proclamation is applicable to Natives as much as to any other Canadian.

BY the same token the Royal Proclamation holds no authority over the US and prior to Confederation there was little in the way of defined borders in the west. Canada has only advanced itself in defiance of the law and so when someone suggests that the "rule of law" is applicable, we can see very clearly that it isn't. In true sovereign fashion Crown law was only ever meant to be applied to citizens of the Crown.

The Royal Proclamation was nullified in the US by the revolutionary war and declaration of independence (in fact, many argue that the Proclamation was seen as a limit on colonial expansion and thus itself became an instigator of the war). Hence, we see more brutal westward expansion of the United States when compared to Canada, where the law continued to apply, and where lands were purchased by agents of the Crown from Natives. It must also be remembered when speaking of expansion, that the Royal Proclamation states a lot of land was fair game, as evidenced in the quote above.

It is also a myth that the Haldimand Tract came by way of the Crown. The tract was ours long before the Crown ever set foot in North America and continued to be ours long after.

That doesn't seem relevant. The documents you use to affirm your claim to certain lands state explicitly that your territories belong to the Crown.

So citing any British written law as proof of applicability is moot, since it was never intended to apply to us. It was and is, however intended to control you in our favour by keeping you away from us and our right to self-determination.

What the Royal Proclamation does is reserve land for you, and grants you some self-determination. That it states you are not subject to the laws of the Crown is clearly your own interpretation, and one that is so far unfounded. Please point specifically to the documents which state that the Proclamation and other laws of the Crown were "never intended" to apply to you - either from King George or any of his agents in North America who assisted in the drafting of the document.

What IS applicable is our oral history (which I have provided in small segments) which clearly not only defines our continuing title to the lands but to the reasons we demanded that the King prohibt you from settling in our territories.

Oral history is very convenient - simply change the story whenever it suits you. Also, we've all played the telephone game enough to know how much a story can change when passed through multiple people. This is why we rely much more on written documentation - which is much more difficult to alter. Of course, you're right that the King did limit the ability of the colonialists to settle on lands reserved for your people, but just because you say he said his laws don't apply to you doesn't necessarily make it so.

In light of so many points being raised here, I have to remind you that you still have not responded to my earlier points regarding passports, citizenship, borders, etc., on top of the others I have raised here.

[g_bambino]

1. Canada is responsible for a trust account it holds on behalf of Six nations worth about $30 billion dollars.

Why does Canada hold a trust account for another nation?

We don't need to tax our people and are able to exist on about half of the budget that you require in your towns and cities.

Well, of course not, your communities are supported by Canadian tax dollars. You do not have your own electricity generation, water purification, health care services, civil service, school system, airports, and every other thing a nation needs to survive. Cut off all that funding and those supplies that come from the foreign nation of Canada and we'll see how long it takes before the Haldimand Tract declines into a state similar to that of Bangladesh.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You are still erred in your logic.

Prove your case WITHOUT the Royal Proclamation or any other law. None of it applies to us or ever has. Our sovereignty is recognized by the Crown and Canada and the US. So on those premises make your case.

I suggest you can't without invoking law that is not applicable. Your argument is lost.

Our oral history is not like your oral history. Over the years those who depend on the written word have lost their ability to remember in the same manner as our oral tradition does. It is not the "word" of one or two people that make it valid. It is the words of many oral historians who tell relatively the same story with a few different details. And given that your written history is inherently biased against us and it repesents only one (or two) opinions of their versions of history, it cannot be relied upon the same manner as our oral history can be (and so states your Supreme Court justices).

So unless you can step outside of British law and British historical texts, your argument is lost. On the other hand not only can we confirm aspects if the written history by correlating it with our oral history we can easily debunk most of what you have written as not being accurate by the same tests.

Much of what you believe about Canada's history was written by bigots and racists. Not that they could help themselves because it IS part of the colonial / western anglo-european Christian thinking system. Once you step outside of that you will see a whole different picture. My bet is that you can't because it will mean everything you based yourself on is myth....and that's preferrable to reality....

O:nen

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Why does Canada hold a trust account for another nation?

Because it was a pay-me-later plan to which the Crown said "trust us". Yet even one of your Indian Agents had a hand in our pie and your governmetn conveniently forgot about it. Good thing we don't forget,eh?

Well, of course not, your communities are supported by Canadian tax dollars. You do not have your own electricity generation, water purification, health care services, civil service, school system, airports, and every other thing a nation needs to survive. Cut off all that funding and those supplies that come from the foreign nation of Canada and we'll see how long it takes before the Haldimand Tract declines into a state similar to that of Bangladesh.

Wrong! Buzzzt! Wrong! Our communties are supported by the half interest on that trust. We DO have our own electricity generation on the Grand River sustem. We do provide our own health care system, our own administration (no need for uncivil service workers like you guys , our own school system, ariport and every other thing a nation needs to survive. Plus we have something Canada does not have - good and honest democratic government, living and thriving culture, caring and relatively peaceful communities and the Haldimand Tract for our exclusive use "forever". What you don't have that we have is sovereignty based on self-determination. Instead you have a Sovereign Monarchy who allows your government some autonomy on domestic issues but who must approve any changes to your system or the supreme law. So in reality Canada is not sovereign but a subset of the Queen's colony.

Don't mistake our friendship with Canada as dependence. That fact reamins we have free-trade agreements with many countries around the world and in an instant all that timber, food, minerals and industrial goods can be shipped from our territory to any nation looking for a good deal. How long do you think it would take for Canada to survive if we authorized the Americans to come in to our territories (and those of allied First Nations) and harvest our resources to you detriment? You forget that the Americans are alos our allies and for a quick buck and some good stash they will help anyone out. Don't go down that road unless you are willing to take a huge loss.

O:nen

[g_bambino]

Prove your case WITHOUT the Royal Proclamation or any other law. None of it applies to us or ever has. Our sovereignty is recognized by the Crown and Canada and the US. So on those premises make your case.

Prove your case without the Royal Proclamation - which you turn to time and time again as evidence that the Crown holds no sovereignty over you when it's written right in there that it does. Ignoring this, you simply state hypocritically that no law applies to you and then expect me to believe it is true.

I have, however provided you with numerous examples of how you are subject to the laws of the Crown (including passages from the Constitution Act 1867), and you have tellingly refused to acknowledge them.

Our oral history is not like your oral history. Over the years those who depend on the written word have lost their ability to remember in the same manner as our oral tradition does. And given that your written history is inherently biased against us and it repesents only one (or two) opinions of their versions of history, it cannot be relied upon the same manner as our oral history can be (and so states your Supreme Court justices).

Oral history is the same everywhere - tales of the past passed from generation to generation. Don't think you're special because you have it - Scots, Central and South Africans, Australian Aborigines, and countless other peoples have been practicing it for millennia, even beyond their development of the written word. But, because they can be biased or vary, tangible documentation or artefacts are relied on as evidence so much more than legend or tales. The evidence right in front of my face points to the fact that your people are not sovereign, nor are your lands. I've directed your attention to that evidence, and all you do is turn away.

Your stories may well paint a different picture to what has been written on parchment, or exists right around you right now, but, in the face of concrete proof to the contrary, your stories are simply make-believe, and all biased completely in your favour.

Much of what you believe about Canada's history was written by bigots and racists. Not that they could help themselves because it IS part of the colonial / western anglo-european Christian thinking system. Once you step outside of that you will see a whole different picture. My bet is that you can't because it will mean everything you based yourself on is myth....and that's preferrable to reality....

I'm not talking of people's opinions on the past; I'm talking about physical, existent evidence. That I search out such things while you rely on tales and fables shows definitively who it is that believes wholeheartedly in myth.