We pay while Indians live in luxury

[DogOnPorch]

Wrong. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was re-affirmed in the Constitution Act 1982. It is not "history" but current and applicable law today.

Treaties were never revised.

Land rights are entrenched in the Constitution.

All the written and oral agreements made 200 years ago still apply today. That is the law.

So all of Canada then? It's 10% off with redemption of oral tradition. Shall I wrap it for you?

-----------------------------------------

Henry: I'm going to be frank with you, Pierce.

Hawkeye: You're gonna be Frank with me?

Henry: I mean, I'm going to be blunt.

Hawkeye: Oh good. Otherwise Frank would be Henry with me, and I don't think I could stand that.

---M*A*S*H: Dr Pierce and Mr Hyde

[myata]

This is the law:

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And. We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

....

Land not ceded belongs to the First Nations and it between them to determine which territory is under their jurisdiction.

As I read it, it applies to the "reserved" lands; and I think it's stated clearly enough, as highlighted; so no, not all lands whatsoever in this country which haven't been ceded belong to First Nations, only those, "lands above reserved".

[AngusThermopyle]

I guess being razor sharp is much better than your dull thuggery. Just get over yourself already. If you don't like the discussion then move on but stop trying to troll and take it off topic. You do that a lot.

Ahhh, so by your definition thuggery, trolling and diverting topics is the act of asking you to back up your opinion with fact. Nice

You do have a lot in common with Danger Mouse.

[charter.rights]

As I read it, it applies to the "reserved" lands; and I think it's stated clearly enough, as highlighted; so no, not all lands whatsoever in this country which haven't been ceded belong to First Nations, only those, "lands above reserved".

The lands "reserved" for the Indians under the Royal Proclamation 1763 as all the lands west of Georgian Bay and north of Upper and Lower Canada. So other than a few colonies that existed along the St Lawrence and Lake Ontario, the rest of the lands were off limits to settlers and colonists. Rightfully so since in 1757 the British complied a map showing Six Nations territory running north to the Ottawa River, west to the west side of Lake Huron, down through the Ohio Valley and upstate New York. And they were well aware that Six Nations had been there for over a hundred years before settlement began.

The relationship between the Natives and the British was international and the British prohibited British subjects from purchasing (or swindling) land from the natives in order to protect the Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship / Two Row Wampum.

All lands not ceded belong to the First Nations. That isn't just an opinion, it is a legal fact and the basis for all negotiations and treaties.

[charter.rights]

Ahhh, so by your definition thuggery, trolling and diverting topics is the act of asking you to back up your opinion with fact. Nice

You do have a lot in common with Danger Mouse.

You haven't ever demonstrated that you were interested in facts since you are often loose with the truth yourself. Instead, I bet you are just pissed off at anything native and prefer to ridicule and troll than to actually engage in factual discussion. I have lots of opinions on the subject and an intimate knowledge of history and legal facts. I even have an opinion about you that involves cold water and an over-inflated ego that probably keeps you in your own corner at parties.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Here is a fact for you, things change.

Here is another fact, the people of the First Nations have themselves changed. To be true to the traditions of their heritage they are supposed to live off the land not my tax dollars. They are to live in harmony with nature, not ravage the land for its resources. They are to hunt and fish and farm to the extent of their needs, not to profit from the sale of these resources. They are to preserve and protect their language and culture, not have somebody do it for them. This so called quest for equality is little more than discrimination against the victors by the vanquished.

Never before in history have such demands such as those put forward by the defeated peoples ever come to pass. Nor should they, because they are unreasonable and delusional. The once proud race of native culture in North America was destroyed by the Europeans, that is true. It is as true as the demise of the mammoth and the Great Plains Buffalo. They now cease to exist. Lets leave the world of fantasy alone for the purpose of debate.

The First Nations peoples are going to come up against a wall of public resentment if they are not careful. Excessive demands are confrontational and are truely detrimental to the best interests of the people of the First Nations. A more realistic goal is to seek a true reserve of land somewhere in which they can maintain their true culture and heritage and live in the old ways. It would be realistic to add the modern advents of education and health care, but to the extent that their culture was preserved and protected. These things western culture could not deny, but to threaten the very nature of our society with crippling penalties for the sins of our fathers is tantamount to the threat of war or at least violent reaction. That is simply foolish and counter-productive.

Let the harsh reality of cold reason light the darkness of errors from the past. Let the heart of the people live in the warmth of traditional values. Let the vision of peace and the contentment of prosperity reach the very souls of the people through their own effort. Now is the time to walk forward using what is behind us as a guide to where we wish to go.

We need to improve the situation of ALL of the peoples of this land, not merely those of the natives.

[AngusThermopyle]

I bet you are just pissed off at anything native

Well you just lost that bet.

I do believe that I've said many times that I have good friends who are Native. I believe I've said many times that I try to convince Native people to come work for us. I believe that I've mentioned going to roundups that were on the reserve, invited by Native people. I believe that as I'm typing this I have friends with me and two of them are Blackfoot, and laughing their asses off at what you assume.

So I bet you are just pissed off at me for challenging your opinion/facts. These guys aren't too happy with the way you make them look either.

For the record, one is a Bigbull and the other is a Daychief. I cant give you their first names but check out Southern Alberta and you'll see that they are legitimate and large famiiles in these parts, lots of Blackfoot here. You should talk to some of them and ask about how much land they inhabited, it doesnt match your version.

[charter.rights]

Well you just lost that bet.

I do believe that I've said many times that I have good friends who are Native. I believe I've said many times that I try to convince Native people to come work for us. I believe that I've mentioned going to roundups that were on the reserve, invited by Native people. I believe that as I'm typing this I have friends with me and two of them are Blackfoot, and laughing their asses off at what you assume.

So I bet you are just pissed off at me for challenging your opinion/facts. These guys aren't too happy with the way you make them look either.

For the record, one is a Bigbull and the other is a Daychief. I cant give you their first names but check out Southern Alberta and you'll see that they are legitimate and large famiiles in these parts, lots of Blackfoot here. You should talk to some of them and ask about how much land they inhabited, it doesnt match your version.

Paying lip service in a politically correct way doesn't diminish your xenophobia towards the culture. The FACT that you display your relationships with certain people demonstrates to me that you are more interested in showing off your trophies than you are in finding out about the people, their culture and the real relationship they have with our government.

[charter.rights]

Here is a fact for you, things change.

Here is another fact, the people of the First Nations have themselves changed. To be true to the traditions of their heritage they are supposed to live off the land not my tax dollars. They are to live in harmony with nature, not ravage the land for its resources. They are to hunt and fish and farm to the extent of their needs, not to profit from the sale of these resources. They are to preserve and protect their language and culture, not have somebody do it for them. This so called quest for equality is little more than discrimination against the victors by the vanquished.

Never before in history have such demands such as those put forward by the defeated peoples ever come to pass. Nor should they, because they are unreasonable and delusional. The once proud race of native culture in North America was destroyed by the Europeans, that is true. It is as true as the demise of the mammoth and the Great Plains Buffalo. They now cease to exist. Lets leave the world of fantasy alone for the purpose of debate.

The First Nations peoples are going to come up against a wall of public resentment if they are not careful. Excessive demands are confrontational and are truely detrimental to the best interests of the people of the First Nations. A more realistic goal is to seek a true reserve of land somewhere in which they can maintain their true culture and heritage and live in the old ways. It would be realistic to add the modern advents of education and health care, but to the extent that their culture was preserved and protected. These things western culture could not deny, but to threaten the very nature of our society with crippling penalties for the sins of our fathers is tantamount to the threat of war or at least violent reaction. That is simply foolish and counter-productive.

Let the harsh reality of cold reason light the darkness of errors from the past. Let the heart of the people live in the warmth of traditional values. Let the vision of peace and the contentment of prosperity reach the very souls of the people through their own effort. Now is the time to walk forward using what is behind us as a guide to where we wish to go.

We need to improve the situation of ALL of the peoples of this land, not merely those of the natives.

Unfortunately Jerry you wasted all that time trying to come up with a rebuttal that you missed the points made in the previous points.

let me summarize for you, since you seem to have skipped over them:

1. Natives were never "conquered or defeated"

2. Our tax dollars do not support natives. We owe them so much that we can't repay that any money they receive doesn't even pup a dent in the interest on the principle.

3. The "noble Indian" image of living off the land is a myth. Even though some still maintain and exercise those rights, the majority hold jobs and live in urban centres, paying taxes and building communities. Native people have always adapted to their environment and new tools that came through trade. If anything it is our society that is stuck on useless myths. Our country is build on lies.

4. The disputes have nothing to do "with the sins of our fathers" - another myth you seem to love. They are legal disputes that we are bound by constitutional law to correct and native right to land is a current issue that must be resolved for us to move forward. In the scheme of things they are right and we are wrong, legally speaking. That is why negotiation is the only way these things will be resolved.

5. Right now the white Anglo Saxon male is a minority in this country. The stodgy colonial "stick it to 'um" attitudes are dying away. As we know visible minorities are dominant in urban centres and many of them have come from oppressive regimes that actually have sympathy for First Nations issues. How do I know? Just go to any rally promoted the resolution of First Nations' issues. They are there in large numbers. So public opinion is on the rise, not only among the minority but among ordinary Canadians who believe in justice.

6. Six Nations receives less than 10% in federal transfers ($36 million in 2007) than municipalities receive from the provincial transfers per capita. That amounts to about $1600 per person to cover all the things we have in our cities, in addition to their health and education programs. The health transfer is about $230 per year.

7. Industries at Six Nations contributed $120 million in 2007 in excise taxes. If you do the math, they have paid more than 3 times what they contributed. If we could add up the income, sales and property taxes that native people pay living in the urban centres we would see that they contribute as much as we do towards INAC and government budgets.

8. Six Nations is owed over $1 trillion in a compounded interest trust the government holds on their behalf. The interest on that would be over $3 billion per year based on INAC interest rates. Since First Nations across Canada only receive about $3 billion a year collectively (out of that $8 billion INAC budget) it would appear that Six Nations - not us -are supporting all the First Nations.

If you are going to chime in with some good discussion matter it would be appreciated. However, coming in just to spew vitriol is neither contributing to this discussion, or helping to teach you the truth. That much delusion should really be medicated.

[JCAN]

I THINK YOU SHOULD QUIT PICKING OUT THE ONE THING IN EVERYONES STATEMENTS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AND LOOK AT THEM IN THEIR COMPLETE CONTEXT. YOU NEVER ONCE BOTHER TO LOOK AT A SIMPLE STATEMENT LIKE THE NATIVES SAY THAT THEY OR NO ONE ELSE SHOULD OWN THE LAND IN THEIR CULTURE YET THEY SEEM TO MAKE SOME BIG CLAIMS FOR IT.

ALL I HAVE SEEN YOU DO IS SPOUT OFF THE SAME SENTENCES THE WHOLE TIME.

THE PROBLEMS AT ISSUE IS THEY ARE OUT DATED AND DO NOT FIT INTO TODAYS CULTURE IT IS NOT ONLY EUROPEANS HERE NOW WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ASIAN AFRICAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE LIVING HERE THEY DID NOT TAKE THE LAND AND YET DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO PICK UP AND MOVE ON WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT GIVES OR CONTINUE TO SUPPORT NATIVE AFFAIRS.

THE AFFAIRS OF OUR FOREFATHERS SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY IF YOU KEEP THINKING OLD AND INSIDE THE SMALL LITTLE BOX YOU LIVE IN NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL IT ERUPTS INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT NO ONE.WE HAVE TO ALL REMEMBER THE WORLD HAS BECOME A SMALLER PLACE AND WHAT HAPPENED 200+ YEARS AGO CANNOT DICTATE POLICY IF SO WE WILL STILL BE TYPING 4000YRS FROM NOW WHEN WE ARE NOT SHOOTING EACH OTHER LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD IT IS ONLY A MATER OF TIME.

I AM QUIT SURE IF THIS HAPPENS WE WILL ALL REGRET IT BUT I AM ALSO SURE THE 6 NATIONS WILL NOT WIN THIS ONE EITHER.

I GREW UP IN NORTHER COMMUNITIES AND I HAVE NATIVE, ASIAN, AFRICAN, EUROPEAN, AND MANY OTHER FRIENDS NONE OF WHICH ARE TROPHIES, THAT FACT THAT YOU WOULD SAY SUCH A THING JUST SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE

I APOLOGIZE TO ALL FOR MY OUT BURST BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS FANATICS RUNNING ON ABOUT THE SAME OLD THINGS AND NOT HAVING ANY CONSTRUCTIVE THINGS TO SAY.

[myata]

The lands "reserved" for the Indians under the Royal Proclamation 1763 as all the lands west of Georgian Bay and north of Upper and Lower Canada.....

Hey, you forgot to mention that, last time. I gather there would be other reservations and nuances hiding somewhere...

Anyways, that statement that "all lands not ceded, etc" isn't entirely correct, shall we say?

[charter.rights]

Hey, you forgot to mention that, last time. I gather there would be other reservations and nuances hiding somewhere...

Anyways, that statement that "all lands not ceded, etc" isn't entirely correct, shall we say?

It is absolutely correct. All lands not ceded are Indian Lands. That according to the Royal Proclamation 1763, affirmed by the Constitution Act 1984. It is are most current and relevant supreme law.

Note that the Royal Proclamation was made for us and had/has no authority over First Nations. It was intended to stop progression west of the Great Lakes. Accordingly those that squatted on the land prohibited under the RP1763 can be removed by Crown authority. So when the government says that they will not take land from Canadians to settle lands claims, that isn't quite true. Under the RC1763 they are required to remove the occupants living on unceded lands and give it back to the Indians.

[charter.rights]

I THINK YOU SHOULD QUIT PICKING OUT THE ONE THING IN EVERYONES STATEMENTS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AND LOOK AT THEM IN THEIR COMPLETE CONTEXT. YOU NEVER ONCE BOTHER TO LOOK AT A SIMPLE STATEMENT LIKE THE NATIVES SAY THAT THEY OR NO ONE ELSE SHOULD OWN THE LAND IN THEIR CULTURE YET THEY SEEM TO MAKE SOME BIG CLAIMS FOR IT.

ALL I HAVE SEEN YOU DO IS SPOUT OFF THE SAME SENTENCES THE WHOLE TIME.

THE PROBLEMS AT ISSUE IS THEY ARE OUT DATED AND DO NOT FIT INTO TODAYS CULTURE IT IS NOT ONLY EUROPEANS HERE NOW WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ASIAN AFRICAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE LIVING HERE THEY DID NOT TAKE THE LAND AND YET DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO PICK UP AND MOVE ON WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT GIVES OR CONTINUE TO SUPPORT NATIVE AFFAIRS.

THE AFFAIRS OF OUR FOREFATHERS SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY IF YOU KEEP THINKING OLD AND INSIDE THE SMALL LITTLE BOX YOU LIVE IN NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL IT ERUPTS INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT NO ONE.WE HAVE TO ALL REMEMBER THE WORLD HAS BECOME A SMALLER PLACE AND WHAT HAPPENED 200+ YEARS AGO CANNOT DICTATE POLICY IF SO WE WILL STILL BE TYPING 4000YRS FROM NOW WHEN WE ARE NOT SHOOTING EACH OTHER LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD IT IS ONLY A MATER OF TIME.

I AM QUIT SURE IF THIS HAPPENS WE WILL ALL REGRET IT BUT I AM ALSO SURE THE 6 NATIONS WILL NOT WIN THIS ONE EITHER.

I GREW UP IN NORTHER COMMUNITIES AND I HAVE NATIVE, ASIAN, AFRICAN, EUROPEAN, AND MANY OTHER FRIENDS NONE OF WHICH ARE TROPHIES, THAT FACT THAT YOU WOULD SAY SUCH A THING JUST SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE

I APOLOGIZE TO ALL FOR MY OUT BURST BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS FANATICS RUNNING ON ABOUT THE SAME OLD THINGS AND NOT HAVING ANY CONSTRUCTIVE THINGS TO SAY.

Hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! LOL :lol: What? Truth hurts?

[Riverwind]

Wrong. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was re-affirmed in the Constitution Act 1982. It is not "history" but current and applicable law today.

A couple facts:

1) The constitution is subject to change by the democratic majority without the approval of aboriginals. Now this is not likely to happen in the short term but it could happen if people decided that aboriginal rights were costing them too much. Bottom line: don't lecture people about the law when they have the power to change the law.

2) The courts have quite deliberately avoided a simple declaration that aboriginals own the land because they know that doing so would create a public backlash that would undermine respect for the law in the long run. The courts want to see a reasonable accomodation that respects the spirit of the treaties signed but does not impose undue hardship on the majority of people living in the country. Bottom line: don't make absolute claims of ownership when the courts have repeatedly avoided making such a ruling when asked.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[charter.rights]

A couple facts:

1) The constitution is subject to change by the democratic majority without the approval of aboriginals. Now this is not likely to happen in the short term but it could happen if people decided that aboriginal rights were costing them too much. Bottom line: don't lecture people about the law when they have the power to change the law.

2) The courts have quite deliberately avoided a simple declaration that aboriginals own the land because they know that doing so would create a public backlash that would undermine respect for the law in the long run. The courts want to see a reasonable accomodation that respects the spirit of the treaties signed but does not impose undue hardship on the majority of people living in the country. Bottom line: don't make absolute claims of ownership when the courts have repeatedly avoided making such a ruling when asked.

Wrong. You keep saying that but in then end it is still wrong.

Rights are "recognized" by the Charter. They are not afforded by it. While in theory the Charter has an amendment process, the practical aspect is that the revision process was left open to add to rights as they became recognized. A good example are the gay marriage issue. If it is the will of the majority then the right of gays to marry people of the same sex could be entrenched as a charter right. As it stands that is not necessary for today at least.

You misunderstand the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not an act of Parliament. It is the foundation of this country and as such we cannot change our relationship with First Nations in respect of their rights without also destroying our own.

No matter what you think, First Nations hold underlying title to all lands in NA. The Crown rests our title on top of and not exclusive of that aboriginal right. That is the way the laws were set up and exist today.

[Rue]

As I read it, it applies to the "reserved" lands; and I think it's stated clearly enough, as highlighted; so no, not all lands whatsoever in this country which haven't been ceded belong to First Nations, only those, "lands above reserved".

Then read it again. You misunderstand what land its referring to.

[Rue]

The lands "reserved" for the Indians under the Royal Proclamation 1763 as all the lands west of Georgian Bay and north of Upper and Lower Canada. So other than a few colonies that existed along the St Lawrence and Lake Ontario, the rest of the lands were off limits to settlers and colonists. Rightfully so since in 1757 the British complied a map showing Six Nations territory running north to the Ottawa River, west to the west side of Lake Huron, down through the Ohio Valley and upstate New York. And they were well aware that Six Nations had been there for over a hundred years before settlement began.

The relationship between the Natives and the British was international and the British prohibited British subjects from purchasing (or swindling) land from the natives in order to protect the Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship / Two Row Wampum.

All lands not ceded belong to the First Nations. That isn't just an opinion, it is a legal fact and the basis for all negotiations and treaties.

What you state is 100% legal fact. But hey why let legal facts get in the way of this.

[Rue]

Oh Mr. Fortin you stated;

"To be true to the traditions of their heritage they are supposed to live off the land not my tax dollars. "

No one is living off your tax dollars. All this comment does is establish you resent aboriginal peoples and are trying to rationalize your resentment with this fallacy that its because they live off of you. They do not. If anything you live off of them.

"They are to live in harmony with nature..."

There's a good one, Mr. Fortin now feels he is in the position to lecture aboriginals on how to live. Why? Because of course Mr.l Fortin is an expert....and of course his patronizing comes about because he is superior and can talk down...

And this comment;

"This so called quest for equality is little more than discrimination against the victors by the vanquished."

Love that reasoning. How dare some rapist ask for a law to put someone in jail who raped her. How unfair is that. Brilliant logic. I love it. The person you rob discriminates if they ask you to be arrested and charged with theft. Brilliant.

"Never before in history have such demands such as those put forward by the defeated peoples ever come to pass."

Damn them. We rob them and they demand their property back. Never. Never has a victim of crime been given restitution. Ever. What criminal compensation board you say? Never. SUe someone in civil court for damages? Never. Worker's compensation for injuries never! Never before in history have our laws allowed compensation for those whose legal rigfhts have been breached. Never. Brilliant.

"Nor should they, because they are unreasonable and delusional."

Yah and listen up, if you get injured at work and your arm is sawed off just shut the f..ck up you delusional punk. You get butkus for that arm. I smash your car going through a red light and permanently paralyze youy, so the f..ck what...you are delusional and unreasonable if you think I am responsible!

"The once proud race of native culture in North America was destroyed by the Europeans, that is true. "

How benevolent and tolerant of you to say. Psst here is a little hint, the word "proud" is a pathetic racist stereotype. Get over it. Enough with these idiot John Wayne cliches. All they do is render you a bafoon for using them. Next, the last time I looked, native culture is still in existence. Who did you say was delusional again?

"It is as true as the demise of the mammoth and the Great Plains Buffalo. They now cease to exist. "

Uh yah delusional. Aboriginals, Buffalo, all gone bye bye. Who wants to tell Mr. Fortin whether its Buffalo or aboriginal peoples whatever he is referring to, they both still exist.

"Lets leave the world of fantasy alone for the purpose of debate."

Yah lets not get delusional shall we.

"The First Nations peoples are going to come up against a wall of public resentment if they are not careful."

Are going to? Ahahahahah. Get serious. There we go again with that delusional stuff. Since confederation began they have been resented. Where have you been? Hello someone home?

"Excessive demands are confrontational and are truely detrimental to the best interests of the people of the First Nations."

Ah there goes the partonizing lecture again. Of course Mr. Fortin you know what is good for these people right. You know. You are the great one who tells them what is.

"A more realistic goal is to seek a true reserve of land somewhere in which they can maintain their true culture and heritage and live in the old ways."

Yes. According to Mr. Fortin Patron of the Aboriginals, he says, listen up native peoples-agree to be confined and remain in a segregated seperated ghetto. Know your place. Off with you now tot he bantu land where you can make trinkets and sell them to tourists. No cigarettes now.

"It would be realistic to add the modern advents of education and health care, but to the extent that their culture was preserved and protected."

Yes and if you are nice we will send you some aspirin.

"These things western culture could not deny, but to threaten the very nature of our society with crippling penalties for the sins of our fathers is tantamount to the threat of war or at least violent reaction. That is simply foolish and counter-productive."

No idea what the above means but I would suggest to aboriginals if its as a result of medicine, don't take what ever he's taking.

"Let the harsh reality of cold reason light the darkness of errors from the past. Let the heart of the people live in the warmth of traditional values. Let the vision of peace and the contentment of prosperity reach the very souls of the people through their own effort. Now is the time to walk forward using what is behind us as a guide to where we wish to go."

For a second it sounded like Charleton Heston had come back from the dead.

"We need to improve the situation of ALL of the peoples of this land, not merely those of the natives."

Of course the entire comments could have been simply stated in the last sentence which of course states;

" to hell with natives...I don't care about natives...they lost I tell you they lost!"

Now then with this kind of contribution to the debate we should have this conflict resolved in no time. Back tot he reservations we go with some aspirin and all will be well.

[Riverwind]

You misunderstand the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not an act of Parliament. It is the foundation of this country and as such we cannot change our relationship with First Nations in respect of their rights without also destroying our own.

I find it amusing that so many native activists seem to think that the consitution is some sort of holy book written by God and forever unchangeable. I have bad news for you: the constiution is just another law which happens requires a little more effort to change. It is not set in stone and the democratic majority is free to make whatever changes they want. There is no legal mechanism that can stop the majority from passing an admendment that would strip away all aboriginal title. Now I do agree that such an admendment would never happen in the current political climate, however, you are hopelessly deluded if you think that aboriginal rights are absolute. Aboriginals only have special rights because the democratic majority wants them to have them. If native activists push too hard they will likely find that majority gets fed up and will strip and/or severly limit those legal rights.

No matter what you think, First Nations hold underlying title to all lands in NA. The Crown rests our title on top of and not exclusive of that aboriginal right. That is the way the laws were set up and exist today.

The SCC has stated clearly that two wrongs don't make a right and that the pratical meaning of aboriginal title needs to be a matter for negotiation. IOW, expansive claims about aboriginals 'owning' the land have no meaning until there is a negotiated settlement and we have good reason to believe that the SCC definition of a fair accomodation is going to be something much less than what you claim. Edited April 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[charter.rights]

The SCC has stated clearly that two wrongs don't make a right and that the pratical meaning of aboriginal title needs to be a matter for negotiation. IOW, expansive claims about aboriginals 'owning' the land have no meaning until there is a negotiated settlement and we have good reason to believe that the SCC definition of a fair accomodation is going to be something much less than what you claim.

The shoe is on the other foot it seems and now as natives begin to reclaim their lands, it is us who must prove we have some right to the land through treaty or cede. We aren't doing very well.

Aboriginal title is well documented since the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made. Now we must prove that land lawfully left their hands. If it didn't, then by default it is theirs.

[JCAN]

Hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! LOL laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif What? Truth hurts?

I think maybe it does which is why you still have not answered any of the basic questions I can see you will always be living in your small little box I guess I can not blame you it must be cozy in there. keep the dream alive and good luck with that

if I ever see you have anything worth replying to you might be lucky enough to hear from me again.

[Who's Doing What?]

SO according to some the rest of Canada "owes" the Natives trillions of dollars. OK

Lets look at all the years of licence exempt fishing and hunting for every native. Then deduct that from what is owed.

Lets look at the billions a year spent on managing their affairs and concerns, and deduct that from what is owed.

Let's look at all the money generated from being allowed to run Casinos, and deduct that from what is owed.

Let's look at the land value of the reserves they already have and deduct that from what is owed.

Let's look at the lack of income tax paid due to the fact natives were recieving a govt. handout, based on what the avg. native outside of a reserve is earning, and deduct that from what is owed.

Let's look at every penny ever spent by this country to provide health, shelter, education and any other thing having to do with Natives, and deduct that from what is owed.

Frankly I don't think that the bill would be too much. The country could likely pay it off within a decade.

[myata]

No matter what you think, First Nations hold underlying title to all lands in NA. The Crown rests our title on top of and not exclusive of that aboriginal right. That is the way the laws were set up and exist today.

No, I don't agree to that; first there're limitations and reservations that you avoid to mention, until challenged. Secondly, as rightfully pointed out, the rights, constitutions, and proclamations, aren't god given everlasting truths. They are recognition of reality as democratic (in our case) majority understands it, ath the time. It is clear that democratic majority wants fair accommodation of native peoples's interests. It is also obvious, that very few rational people would find it fair to sell 90% of the country to pay out a small minority, and at that the one that is already entitled to benefits not shared by others. So the bottom line is, as others already pointed out, be reasonable in negotiating your interests, or the limits of those interests will be imposed. Imposed through the legal democratic process, of course, i.e. by a change in the law, or if necessary, constitution; and so on.

[Riverwind]

Aboriginal title is well documented since the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made. Now we must prove that land lawfully left their hands. If it didn't, then by default it is theirs.

The reality is infinitely more complex. Aboriginal title is a special form of right to the land which cannot be compared directly to fee simple. The supreme court has set out criteria that aboriginal groups must meet before they can claim aboriginal title. One of these criteria is continuous use of the land since confederation. IOW - the onus of proof is on the aboriginal groups - not the crown.

[charter.rights]

The reality is infinitely more complex. Aboriginal title is a special form of right to the land which cannot be compared directly to fee simple. The supreme court has set out criteria that aboriginal groups must meet before they can claim aboriginal title. One of these criteria is continuous use of the land since confederation. IOW - the onus of proof is on the aboriginal groups - not the crown.

Although the courts have trouble seeing it because they are limited by the Constitution, Aboriginal right exceeds even the Supreme Court's jurisdiction - especially Six Nations and other "loyal allies". In essence to the scheme of things it doesn't matter what the SCoC says because their land rights are about them, even. The only authority the SCoC has is by way of determining what the Constitution says and telling us what those rights entail from our perspective. They have no bearing on aboriginal right since it precedes Canadian authority, and British authority. Aboriginal rights are inherent.

Once land is reclaimed such as in Caledonia, or Deseronto, or Ardoch or any other place, the onus is on the Crown to prove the land was ceded. Despite the government's first brash comments, the fact is they have despertely tried to prove the land was ceded and at least in Deseronto they have admitted it never was. That is where negotiations begin with the government's documents and not with the claim. The reclamations provide speedy access to those negotiations.