We pay while Indians live in luxury

[charter.rights]

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.

You obviously haven't read the Royal Proclamation 1763. You are digging yourself into a "dumb" hole. I would suggest that you know what you are talking about before you attempt to debate the points.

As far as "It is also obvious, that very few rational people would find it fair to sell 90% of the country..." you are off on the wrong tract. Your property is not your own. You only hold title to it, which is a certificate of your possession. It does not mean that you own the land or can do anything you want with it. Aboriginal title however, is not based on the Crown's leasing scheme that we live under. It means that natives have a right to determine what you do to the land and prohibit you from doing it, just like the Crown, or the municipality. However, unlike the Crown aboriginal right even exceeds the Crown and essentially under our own laws they get to tell the government what is and is not acceptable on their lands.

We can take a long process to try to no avail to amend the rights outlined in the Charter, but that will never diminish "rights" that are inherent rights since they exceed even the authority and rights granted under the Constitution. The only way to defer those inherent rights is to try to extinguish them through extermination. That has already been tried and failed in the genocidal policies of the past. And it would be highly unlikely that ordinary Canadians would stand for more genocide, having now to face the repercussions of residential schools and aboriginal societal problems. Plus it is highly unlikely that the rest of the world would stand by and let that type of scenario unfold. So we are stuck with those rights whether we agree with them or not.

[Riverwind]

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".

ROTFL. You really are clueless. The SCC has the final say on all constitutional matters within the borders of Canada. Even then the parliament can override the SCC if it follows the special rules set out in the constitution. Some native groups could attempt to secede from Canada following the precedents set by the clarity act, however, all territory remains the subject to the laws and constitution of Canada until then. Edited April 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[charter.rights]

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.

Sure let's look at them:

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

Licensing of hunting and fishing began in Ontario as a voluntary licensing process. The payments were suppose to go to resource protection and re-stocking of our lakes and rivers. Then the fees were thrown into general revenues with no accountability. However, aboriginal people have an inherent right to hunt and fish anywhere they want. There are no fees required because their rights exceed the stupid regulations of Ontario. Nothing is owed. Except perhaps that we owe them for hunting in their territories. Nothing in our treaties ever gave us that right.

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

Our government took a paternal approach to native people, put them on reservations and took away their livelyhoods. We have a fiduciary responsibility for them since our continuous destruction of their hunting, fishing and agricultural lands is the cause of their burden on us. Again, nothing is owed since we took on the responsibility ourselves.

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

This one is laughable. The Casinos they were profiting from up to this last fall were totally on their lands and were their businesses. The government saw the winfall and attempted to steal their profits. In the fall of this year the provincial government of Ontario settled out of court, offering nearly 25% of all the revenues of all the provinces casinos in exchange for a hundred billion dollar lawsuit they were bound to lose. 75% of the revenues now benefit all of Ontarians. We got off lucky, and nothing is owed by First Nations.

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

All lands in Canada that haven't been legally ceded belong to First Nations. Without their consent we have been extracting resources, and developing lands and polluting lakes and rivers, with no compensation to the rightful owners. We have used stolen property and if we were to buy what we have used to legitimize the thefts, we would be in debt forever. You're right here. There is something owed. We owe First nations zillions of dollars.

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.

Income taxes were instituted in the Second World War to support the war effort as a temporary measure. At the time, native people were never considered human beings let alone allowed to vote, or hire lawyers to defend them against government intrusion. They were non-entities. You could not tax a non-entity any more than you could tax an idle dump truck. Today however, native industries and off-reserve natives contribute to the economy by war of income taxes and other taxes in as much proportion as we do. Even most people on reserve have jobs outside of their territories and while they are exempt from personal income tax, they still contribute to the economy of most adjoining towns, villages and cities. As it stands we are still holding their trust accounts that would amount into the trillions of dollars, the interest of which would more than cover all money put into INAC for programs and services and all other transfers to Band governments for their basic needs. So yes, again, we owe them big time.

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.

Health care, education and housing funding on reserve is funded at less than 10% of what we fund ourselves in similar communities per capita. This money is already being deducted from the interest we owe them on their trust accounts. However, because we are not even paying the full interest on those accounts, we still owe them. The principle on these accounts nearly doubles every 10 years. By 2015 the Six Nations trust account will be worth over 2 trillion dollars, with an annual interest of 7 billion per year - that is almost the entire INAC budget that we owe them.

Indian Affairs by the way is our invention and our responsibility. If we want we could just stop sucking 5 billion out of our taxes that go towards government salaries and programs that support Ottawa and give them the interest on their money instead. If we did that every native in Canada would have about $20,000 available for their use. That is a far cry from the $1600 the band receives on their behalf each year now....... Can you imagine how prosperous they could be with an extra $20,000 tax free in their pockets each year.

I sense ingratitude from you. You should be grateful because the tables could have been turned and at the rate we are going may very well be turned around in our lifetimes. Legally we are not on stable ground as native people reassert the treaties and their inherent rights over the lands that we illegally occupy.

[charter.rights]

ROTFL. You really are clueless. The SCC has the final say on all constitutional matters within the borders of Canada. Even then the parliament can override the SCC if it follows the special rules set out in the constitution. Some native groups could attempt to secede from Canada following the precedents set by the clarity act, however, all territory remains the subject to the laws and constitution of Canada until then.

Aboriginal people are not Canadians, so their rights are as untouchable as the American's right under their Constitution. Clueless it appears is you middle name. You spend an awful lot of time in dreaming......The SCoC is a Crown institution and therefore subject to the underlying aboriginal rights.

[Riverwind]

Aboriginal people are not Canadians, so their rights are as untouchable as the American's right under their Constitution. Clueless it appears is you middle name. You spend an awful lot of time in dreaming......The SCoC is a Crown institution and therefore subject to the underlying aboriginal rights.

Whatever. I realize that these crackpot theories are being circulated among aboriginal activists who wish to justify any sort of lawlessness, however, I find it amusing that think you lecture others about respect for the law when you clearly have no interest in respecting the law. You have two choices:

1) Acknowledge the authority of the SCC and the the laws of Canada and seek to have your rights clarified within that framework;

2) Use force of arms to set up an independent state with whatever terroritory that you are capable of holding;

There is no legal authority which has the power to enforce aboriginal rights as you define them.

[jbg]

For the most part First Nations, supported by a number of Supreme Court decisions, want consultation and accommodation. If we truly want a relationship that is built on equality and trust we must accept that legal responsibility and risk that development will no longer be a free-for-all. If we properly consulted with them it would be likely that they want the same things the average citizen wants but are often over-ruled by municipal planning authorities and big corporate interests.

***********

We can begin by at least supporting them "equally". As it stands First Nation communities are funded at less than 10% of our urban communities. Their water, social systems and infrastructure is crumbling or non-existent. At least we owe them that to prove that we are sincere about our obligations.

So what you're saying is that the FN's can hold all development hostage to their demands, dressed up as "consultation" and receive subsidies? That may be legal but it's politically impossible and unrealistic in a democracy.

Edited April 13, 2008 by jbg

[charter.rights]

So what you're saying is that the FN's can hold all development hostage to their demands, dressed up as "consultation" and receive subsidies? That may be legal but it's politically impossible and unrealistic in a democracy.

Not at all. It is the reality of current development in most centres. Conservation authorities, health departments, transportation ministries and planning departments hold up developments all the time for their own reasons. Adding First nations to that list of required approvals is no big stretch AND more tha petty by-laws and provincial regulations, the requirement is the supreme law of Canada.

And who says they will hold development hostage? For the most part First Nations want the same things that other communities want. Good planning principles, protection of our natural resources, economic benefit etc. Heck Six Nations has even published an official plan identifying areas for growth and other protected areas. Is it that hard to consult and accommodate those interests?

[charter.rights]

Whatever. I realize that these crackpot theories are being circulated among aboriginal activists who wish to justify any sort of lawlessness, however, I find it amusing that think you lecture others about respect for the law when you clearly have no interest in respecting the law. You have two choices:

1) Acknowledge the authority of the SCC and the the laws of Canada and seek to have your rights clarified within that framework;

2) Use force of arms to set up an independent state with whatever terroritory that you are capable of holding;

There is no legal authority which has the power to enforce aboriginal rights as you define them.

Rights are exercised by the people they benefit. First Nations have taken that approach recently and now fish and hunt in territories they were once told they could not. They have occupied and reclaimed lands that are theirs that we have squatted on. Their authority is inherent in their being aboriginal people.

The SCoC is our law and requires us to comply. They have their own inherent laws and customs that the SCoC and the Charter says we cannot interfere with. Yet our history is filled with examples of where we forced our systems and laws on them and the only results we have harvested are failures.

What I find amusing is that you are no different a thinker than the colonials who though they knew was was best for native people and despite the centuries of failures you still insist you know better. Even a goat has better sense.

[Wild Bill]

Aboriginal right exceeds even the Supreme Court's jurisdiction - especially Six Nations and other "loyal allies".

Good thing you put "loyal allies" in quotations. After the Six Nations tactics at Caledonia, they could not possibly be truthfully described as "loyal allies".

While you're totalling up who owes for what, be sure to include the electrical transformer that fed the town. Perhaps some of those towers that were destroyed as well.

It has been posted before that public support for native rights may be eroding in the general public, outside of the NDP/socialist protester fringe group, of course. My impression belies that. From what I read and hear, public support for native rights in general is as strong if not stronger in the general Canadian population as ever.

It's just eroding as specifically regards Six Nations!

I see this as a good thing. It is NOT fair to tar ALL native bands with the same brush! They are not all united as per their governance and they do not act in the same manner in disputes and protests.

The fuse is still smoking at Caledonia...

Edited April 13, 2008 by Wild Bill

[charter.rights]

Good thing you put "loyal allies" in quotations. After the Six Nations tactics at Caledonia, they could not possibly be truthfully described as "loyal allies".

While you're totalling up who owes for what, be sure to include the electrical transformer that fed the town. Perhaps some of those towers that were destroyed as well.

It has been posted before that public support for native rights may be eroding in the general public, outside of the NDP/socialist protester fringe group, of course. My impression belies that. From what I read and hear, public support for native rights in general is as strong if not stronger in the general Canadian population as ever.

It's just eroding as specifically regards Six Nations!

I see this as a good thing. It is NOT fair to tar ALL native bands with the same brush! They are not all united as per their governance and they do not act in the same manner in disputes and protests.

The fuse is still smoking at Caledonia...

You are confused.

The burning of the electrical transformer wasn't done by any native, at least as far as anyone knows. The police don't have any suspects, or arrests in connection with that incident. And no towers were destroyed as a result of any protests. The towers were laying on the ground and merely pulled onto the road as a barricade. As part of the protest Ontario Power was prevented from erecting power lines across the reclaimed lands. After the barricades were pulled down, I believed the towers were simply returned to their original location on the reclaimed land.

You are even more confused about support for Six Nations. The only distention lies and surrounds Caledonia. Outside of that area support is stronger today than it was 2 years ago and symapthy for native injustice is growing weekly. It gets better because now the provincial government is ramping up their commitment to find a resolution while at the same time trying to find a way to comply with the law. The announcement of the discussion on a development moratorium by the province is an indication that they support the negotiated settlement and are willing to go the distance. At the same time they are supporting native people across Ontario in their quest to fight the mining companies illegally exploring their lands. Now that they have realized that professional protestors / agitators like Gary McHale and Mark Vanderaas are frauds, and that the baby crocodile tears spilled by many Caledonians a year ago are based on racist fears, the real picture that is evolving is one of respect and consideration and legitimacy. So at the end of the day, people like you who only seem to want to whine about "poor me", ignoring the legal and moral reality of the Six Nations reclamations are really in the growing minority. Rarely do we even hear about Caledonia in the news anymore except when McHale is trying extort cash while trying to stifle free speech. Good thing too, because as a Canadian whose support of Six Nations has grown since the reclamation of the Douglas reek Estates, I find more people in agreement with me when we discuss the issues, than anyone who opposes my views. You really are in the minority, my friend and it is only an matter of time before education on native issues finds you all alone in your opinion.

Disputes, reclamations and protest are the new methods for having grievances heard. You will find that the coming months will demonstrate that as First Nations across Canada push for economic disruptions in order to make the government do what they are legally obligated to do - stay off their land, consult and accommodate their interests.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Like I said before lets not be politically correct here.

First Nations call themselves whatever they want. They can deny their Canadian citizenship. The can and have done what they want to this point. Now having established these little facts, I suggest that we simply stop funding anything to do with aboriginal affairs. Clearly we are not entitled to any form of opinion regarding their culture heritage, race or whatever in the opinions of some. I must agree with them. So why should we give them a dime? They are not Canadian, have now regard for our laws and society and don't want to pay for the benefits of citizenship like everybody else in this nation is compelled to do.

So thank-you charter of rights and all the rest of your supporters or those like minded to your thinking, you have convinced me that there is only one solution to this problem. You should be free to do as you please and I suggest that Canada do exactly that. I will be writing to my MP and ask him to support my position on this. I will start over the next few months to gain access to public meeting and bring this point to the attention of citizens. I don't know how successful I will be but I am sure every little bit will help. Canada can realize huge savings from eliminating the expense of giving away money to people who are not Canadian, the money can be better spent at home.

As to your culture there folks, I no longer care to discuss it nor care to study it. You have made your feelings very clear. In my opinion you folks are racist and petty. There is no room in my heart for you and again I must thank you for changing my mind.

You shall reap what you sew people. Oh yes, good luck forcing this nation to do anything through OUR court system you bunch of fools.

[charter.rights]

Like I said before lets not be politically correct here.

First Nations call themselves whatever they want. They can deny their Canadian citizenship. The can and have done what they want to this point. Now having established these little facts, I suggest that we simply stop funding anything to do with aboriginal affairs. Clearly we are not entitled to any form of opinion regarding their culture heritage, race or whatever in the opinions of some. I must agree with them. So why should we give them a dime? They are not Canadian, have now regard for our laws and society and don't want to pay for the benefits of citizenship like everybody else in this nation is compelled to do.

So thank-you charter of rights and all the rest of your supporters or those like minded to your thinking, you have convinced me that there is only one solution to this problem. You should be free to do as you please and I suggest that Canada do exactly that. I will be writing to my MP and ask him to support my position on this. I will start over the next few months to gain access to public meeting and bring this point to the attention of citizens. I don't know how successful I will be but I am sure every little bit will help. Canada can realize huge savings from eliminating the expense of giving away money to people who are not Canadian, the money can be better spent at home.

As to your culture there folks, I no longer care to discuss it nor care to study it. You have made your feelings very clear. In my opinion you folks are racist and petty. There is no room in my heart for you and again I must thank you for changing my mind.

You shall reap what you sew people. Oh yes, good luck forcing this nation to do anything through OUR court system you bunch of fools.

Dreamer.

The government can't stop the money flow because:

1. We have a fiduciary responsibility for First Nations (at least until they are economically self-sufficient, and

2. We owe them trillions of dollars for taking and using their lands and resources without their consent.

You can however, continue to dream and ask your MP anything you want. Unfortunately it won't make any difference. We are bound until our debts are paid.

I will tell my native friends that they no longer have your support. I'm sure that between burping and farting they will give you one laugh and carry on with what they were doing. Your loss of support doesn't matter in the least and your voice on the matter is even less important them or the government.

[Who's Doing What?]

Sure let's look at them:

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

Licensing of hunting and fishing began in Ontario as a voluntary licensing process. The payments were suppose to go to resource protection and re-stocking of our lakes and rivers. Then the fees were thrown into general revenues with no accountability. However, aboriginal people have an inherent right to hunt and fish anywhere they want. There are no fees required because their rights exceed the stupid regulations of Ontario. Nothing is owed. Except perhaps that we owe them for hunting in their territories. Nothing in our treaties ever gave us that right.

See you don't get it. They have been getting this for free when others have been paying for the right to fish and hunt. To me that is racist - People given special treatment/rights based soley on their race.

At anyrate they should not be so quick to forget that if they had been forced to pay it would have collectively cost them millions. So let's leave that little tidbit in there when we are figuring out exactly what is "owed" to Natives.

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

Our government took a paternal approach to native people, put them on reservations and took away their livelyhoods. We have a fiduciary responsibility for them since our continuous destruction of their hunting, fishing and agricultural lands is the cause of their burden on us. Again, nothing is owed since we took on the responsibility ourselves.

Again you don't get it. Billions a year spent to deal with Native issues and provide for natives and yet you just think it is meaningless.

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

This one is laughable. The Casinos they were profiting from up to this last fall were totally on their lands and were their businesses. The government saw the winfall and attempted to steal their profits. In the fall of this year the provincial government of Ontario settled out of court, offering nearly 25% of all the revenues of all the provinces casinos in exchange for a hundred billion dollar lawsuit they were bound to lose. 75% of the revenues now benefit all of Ontarians. We got off lucky, and nothing is owed by First Nations.

This one is far from laughable. They were allowed to open casinos because they had special status and rights as natives. No special treatment, no casinos. Plain and simple.

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

All lands in Canada that haven't been legally ceded belong to First Nations. Without their consent we have been extracting resources, and developing lands and polluting lakes and rivers, with no compensation to the rightful owners. We have used stolen property and if we were to buy what we have used to legitimize the thefts, we would be in debt forever. You're right here. There is something owed. We owe First nations zillions of dollars.

I am talking about the land value of lands that were given to the natives instead of having them assimilate into our society. Prime vacation land worth tens of millions is within 20min of me.

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.

Income taxes were instituted in the Second World War to support the war effort as a temporary measure. At the time, native people were never considered human beings let alone allowed to vote, or hire lawyers to defend them against government intrusion. They were non-entities. You could not tax a non-entity any more than you could tax an idle dump truck. Today however, native industries and off-reserve natives contribute to the economy by war of income taxes and other taxes in as much proportion as we do. Even most people on reserve have jobs outside of their territories and while they are exempt from personal income tax, they still contribute to the economy of most adjoining towns, villages and cities. As it stands we are still holding their trust accounts that would amount into the trillions of dollars, the interest of which would more than cover all money put into INAC for programs and services and all other transfers to Band governments for their basic needs. So yes, again, we owe them big time.

Actually income tax was started in WWI, not WWII. So we can add another 20 years of taxes to the calculation. Add in late fees, penalties and interest and I think your calculation of what is "owed" takes a huge hit.

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.

Health care, education and housing funding on reserve is funded at less than 10% of what we fund ourselves in similar communities per capita. This money is already being deducted from the interest we owe them on their trust accounts. However, because we are not even paying the full interest on those accounts, we still owe them. The principle on these accounts nearly doubles every 10 years. By 2015 the Six Nations trust account will be worth over 2 trillion dollars, with an annual interest of 7 billion per year - that is almost the entire INAC budget that we owe them.

Indian Affairs by the way is our invention and our responsibility. If we want we could just stop sucking 5 billion out of our taxes that go towards government salaries and programs that support Ottawa and give them the interest on their money instead. If we did that every native in Canada would have about $20,000 available for their use. That is a far cry from the $1600 the band receives on their behalf each year now....... Can you imagine how prosperous they could be with an extra $20,000 tax free in their pockets each year.

Ya but for some strange reason natives don't want to stop sucking billions of dollars a year out of the federal budget, do they?

I sense ingratitude from you. You should be grateful because the tables could have been turned and at the rate we are going may very well be turned around in our lifetimes. Legally we are not on stable ground as native people reassert the treaties and their inherent rights over the lands that we illegally occupy.

OK I am going to be perfectly blunt with you. YOU LOST!

When the country was up for grabs, YOU LOST. You are a defeated people who are damn lucky to have been treated as well as you have been. The simple fact natives weren't totally exterminated after colonization is something you forget to be thankful for. Now even as we pump billions a year into trying to make your lives even easier and give you additional rights that other Canadians don't get you still cry for more. I used to really sympathize. Now I couldn't care less.

[Rue]

Good thing you put "loyal allies" in quotations. After the Six Nations tactics at Caledonia, they could not possibly be truthfully described as "loyal allies".

While you're totalling up who owes for what, be sure to include the electrical transformer that fed the town. Perhaps some of those towers that were destroyed as well.

It has been posted before that public support for native rights may be eroding in the general public, outside of the NDP/socialist protester fringe group, of course. My impression belies that. From what I read and hear, public support for native rights in general is as strong if not stronger in the general Canadian population as ever.

It's just eroding as specifically regards Six Nations!

I see this as a good thing. It is NOT fair to tar ALL native bands with the same brush! They are not all united as per their governance and they do not act in the same manner in disputes and protests.

The fuse is still smoking at Caledonia...

I agree with you W-Bill.

[Rue]

Like I said before lets not be politically correct here.

First Nations call themselves whatever they want. They can deny their Canadian citizenship. The can and have done what they want to this point. Now having established these little facts, I suggest that we simply stop funding anything to do with aboriginal affairs. Clearly we are not entitled to any form of opinion regarding their culture heritage, race or whatever in the opinions of some. I must agree with them. So why should we give them a dime? They are not Canadian, have now regard for our laws and society and don't want to pay for the benefits of citizenship like everybody else in this nation is compelled to do.

So thank-you charter of rights and all the rest of your supporters or those like minded to your thinking, you have convinced me that there is only one solution to this problem. You should be free to do as you please and I suggest that Canada do exactly that. I will be writing to my MP and ask him to support my position on this. I will start over the next few months to gain access to public meeting and bring this point to the attention of citizens. I don't know how successful I will be but I am sure every little bit will help. Canada can realize huge savings from eliminating the expense of giving away money to people who are not Canadian, the money can be better spent at home.

As to your culture there folks, I no longer care to discuss it nor care to study it. You have made your feelings very clear. In my opinion you folks are racist and petty. There is no room in my heart for you and again I must thank you for changing my mind.

You shall reap what you sew people. Oh yes, good luck forcing this nation to do anything through OUR court system you bunch of fools.

With due respect I do not have a problem with your position that you challenge aboriginal rights. Where I jump on you is when you engage in the name calling, the patronization, it belittles the very positions you are trying to make and does nothing but turn you into a baiter or taunter. That is why I was sarcastic back to you-I am being tongue in cheek.

Surely there's a way to debate this legal conflict without it turning personal and an excuse to insult people otherwise it becomes absurd like some of the comments I made to you.

I do not agree with many things Charter says but why insult aboriginal people or pretend the law is not what it is.

I am sorry but as a lawyer I can't ignore the law. The constitution guarantees aboriginal rights and says they superceded confederation and run parallel to our existing legal system and are to be honoured.

The fact is the federal government breached the treaties it signed and the Supreme Court said it now must make restitution for the treaties it breached. You can insult aboriginals all you want but it does not change that fact and the fact that if we claim to be civilized, that is what we do-admit when we breach agreements we entered into-not argue that we can now ignore them because its not convenient.

Let's get something clear. The federal legislative powers can not pass laws that violate the Charter and in particular the applicable sections guaranteeing equality and aboriginal rights. Its not going to happen. No democratically elected government is going to pass a law that tries to violate the charter. If they do they will be found unenforceable.

There is no way the federal parliament can pass legislation absolving the federal government of having to provide resitution for the treaties it breached. The only issue is what form they will take, not whether they will be provided and the government can keep stalling but its a fait accompli.

Until you make an effort to read what the aboriginal positions have been during negotiations you will continue to stereotype them as being unreasonable. Nothing could be further then the truth. if you take the time to see how they have been negotiating. Its been the federal government, not the aboriginal collective dragging its feet and if you won't make an effort to find that out by looking at the actual negotiations, I can't convince you what you are saying is just anger and that is not how to solve this.

A solution is not that hard. Its already being done. It consists of recognizing aboriginal access to land for hunting and fishing and providing them a percentage of any revenues derived therefrom when exploited.

Its not rocket science. Its quid pro quo. Resenting aboriginals because they have legitimate legal rights is horseshit. You have a problem go back and complain to King John when he came up with the Magna Carta Act.

This is nonsense to say, someone lost a war so you can seize their world and not recognize their existence-that is precisely why the world is so fucked with so many tribal wars across the world.

Extremists on either side are not going to derail the process. Its emerging slowly.

Caledonia is purely the result of the federal government refusing to do what it has to do and that is resolve a breached treaty and try work with all the people affected by that breach in a fair manner.

I am tempted to volunteer to send Wild Bill and Angus T. in to settle it once and for all. They could very easily if this stupid government wasn't so damn afraid of its own shadow.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

Dreamer.

The government can't stop the money flow because:

1. We have a fiduciary responsibility for First Nations (at least until they are economically self-sufficient, and

2. We owe them trillions of dollars for taking and using their lands and resources without their consent.

You can however, continue to dream and ask your MP anything you want. Unfortunately it won't make any difference. We are bound until our debts are paid.

I will tell my native friends that they no longer have your support. I'm sure that between burping and farting they will give you one laugh and carry on with what they were doing. Your loss of support doesn't matter in the least and your voice on the matter is even less important them or the government.

His point is that regular Joes and Janes are getting pretty fed-up with this 'we own everything' crap. Even more fed-up each time our government(s) cave to "First-Nations" terrorist-like demands.

MacLeans pegs the top 5 most dangerous cities in Canada as:

Winnipeg

Regina

Sakatoon

Prince George

Edmonton

I wonder what's the common thread with those cities?

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

Oh, God in Heaven! Give me back the courage of the olden Chiefs. Let me wrestle with my surroundings. Let me again, as in the days of old, dominate my environment. Let me humbly accept this new culture and through it rise up and go on.

---Dan George

[charter.rights]

His point is that regular Joes and Janes are getting pretty fed-up with this 'we own everything' crap. Even more fed-up each time our government(s) cave to "First-Nations" terrorist-like demands.

MacLeans pegs the top 5 most dangerous cities in Canada as:

Winnipeg

Regina

Sakatoon

Prince George

Edmonton

I wonder what's the common thread with those cities?

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

Oh, God in Heaven! Give me back the courage of the olden Chiefs. Let me wrestle with my surroundings. Let me again, as in the days of old, dominate my environment. Let me humbly accept this new culture and through it rise up and go on.

---Dan George

Right wing rednecks.

[myata]

What I find amusing is that you are no different a thinker than the colonials who though they knew was was best for native people and despite the centuries of failures you still insist you know better. Even a goat has better sense.

No, there're nuances here that you either fail to notice, or chose to not mention; e.g. the important point Riverwind made about "use it or lose it". It applies to the concept of sovereignity too. There're many nations in the recent history, which, being occupied or colonized, never relinquished their claim for independence. Ireland is one example out of great many. Eventually, through continuous struggle, many were able to restore their sovereignity.

Situation in Canada is by far and large, different. I know of no examples where either specific nation; or confederation or group thereof; raised and maintained continuous resistence to the alleged colonization; I admit that I haven't studied the subject deeply, but if such examples exist, they aren't in the domain of general public knowledge. Certainly conflicts and disputes arose here and there (Metis being one example), but they were almost always centered around specific local issues, not the general notion of independence.

Therefore, and unless you can prove otherwise, the claim for full sovereignity over the original territories may, by now, be nullified; the only claim of independence any nation can make would have to be settled (by negotiation, or otherwise) between two equal sides, i.e Canada and the nation in question. The basis for such claim (which I, in principle would fully support, if the people of the nation showed free and clear choice for it) would have to be the de facto situation as of today (i.e territories actually controlled and used by nation), and not de jure of the days long past. Don't believe me? We'll have to wait for the first precedent of the kind, if it ever comes to happen.

In common language this means that one can't have it both ways; i.e. enjoy free benefits of being a part of country; while maintaining the claim of independence if and when it suits you.

So the choices we have are either to negotiate a fair and reasonable interpretation of the past agreements under the general jurisdiction of Canada, or, if the wish arises, put forward the question of formal independence, which would have to be settled between the equal partners based on the current reality. Which, outside of legal scope of Canada, should and would be the only basis for such negotiation. There would be neither a need, nor reason for Canada to take into account documents like the Royal Proclamation, as those were issued within it's jurisdiction and for its citizens, and would have no relevance in the matters of international negotiations.

[Riverwind]

Its not rocket science. Its quid pro quo. Resenting aboriginals because they have legitimate legal rights is horseshit. You have a problem go back and complain to King John when he came up with the Magna Carta Act.

The constitution once only permitted white land owning men to vote but that changed because people understood that such discrimination is incompatible with the principals of an egalitarian democracy. The same applies to any special rights to aboriginals and they should be completely extinguished for the same reason. Unfortunately, there are too many people who have bought in the "white guilt" BS and are no longer willing to stand up for principals anymore. Edited April 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[charter.rights]

No, there're nuances here that you either fail to notice, or chose to not mention; e.g. the important point Riverwind made about "use it or lose it". It applies to the concept of sovereignity too. There're many nations in the recent history, which, being occupied or colonized, never relinquished their claim for independence. Ireland is one example out of great many. Eventually, through continuous struggle, many were able to restore their sovereignity.

Situation in Canada is by far and large, different. I know of no examples where either specific nation; or confederation or group thereof; raised and maintained continuous resistence to the alleged colonization; I admit that I haven't studied the subject deeply, but if such examples exist, they aren't in the domain of general public knowledge. Certainly conflicts and disputes arose here and there (Metis being one example), but they were almost always centered around specific local issues, not the general notion of independence.

Therefore, and unless you can prove otherwise, the claim for full sovereignity over the original territories may, by now, be nullified; the only claim of independence any nation can make would have to be settled (by negotiation, or otherwise) between two equal sides, i.e Canada and the nation in question. The basis for such claim (which I, in principle would fully support, if the people of the nation showed free and clear choice for it) would have to be the de facto situation as of today (i.e territories actually controlled and used by nation), and not de jure of the days long past. Don't believe me? We'll have to wait for the first precedent of the kind, if it ever comes to happen.

In common language this means that one can't have it both ways; i.e. enjoy free benefits of being a part of country; while maintaining the claim of independence if and when it suits you.

So the choices we have are either to negotiate a fair and reasonable interpretation of the past agreements under the general jurisdiction of Canada, or, if the wish arises, put forward the question of formal independence, which would have to be settled between the equal partners based on the current reality. Which, outside of legal scope of Canada, should and would be the only basis for such negotiation. There would be neither a need, nor reason for Canada to take into account documents like the Royal Proclamation, as those were issued within it's jurisdiction and for its citizens, and would have no relevance in the matters of international negotiations.

All agreements and proclamations were on the basis of a nation to nation relationship. This is recognized by the government already.

"I know of no examples where either specific nation; or confederation or group thereof; raised and maintained continuous resistence to the alleged colonization; I admit that I haven't studied the subject deeply..." I'm glad that you have admitted your ignorance.

Although I don't like using Wikipedia as a reference, I fear that anything more substantial would just confuse you:

The Iroquois have a representative government known as the Grand Council. The Grand Council is the oldest governmental institution still maintaining its original form in North America.

For those who can comprehend a little more:

Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth

The Haudenosaunee, Iroquois or Six Nations never relinquished their government and even after their council at Six Nations of the Grand was deposed at gunpoint in the 1920's they still maintained their traditional government system. The Confederacy is the official negotiating body at the talks at Caledonia and recognized as the government representing the Six Nation people in lands claims negotiations.

There would be neither a need, nor reason for Canada to take into account documents like the Royal Proclamation...

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is entrenched in the Constitution Act 1982 and as such as is valid to the consideration of the government in negotiation as the Crown is. You cannot detach the law from the people.

So in summary you are wrong on all counts. Keeping trying though. In all of this you have to be learning something.....even if you don't retain it long... what a druppy....

[DogOnPorch]

Right wing rednecks.

That wouldn't be my first choice. The overwhealming problem in those communities is 'First Nations' gangs. The Crew...the Independent Warriors, etc...etc.

Is 'redneck' a racial slur?

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

A Chuck U. Farley Production

---Cheech y Chong

Edited April 14, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DangerMouse]

My take, is that we are equal under the law and under the charter. As we are now, we are not.

That is racist irrespective of any land ownership or not.

It is a wrong that needs to be changed.

As long as they are 2 levels of governments (provincial vs feds), the constitution and the courts at provincial and federal, there will never a total equal for whatever that means. There will all sorts of jurisdictional conflicts. This is seen with DIA and other jurisdictions like fisheries. Something that people like Angus and Jerry Fartin (oops or fortin) don't see. One person on here mentioned something about political correctness of the term "Indian." What I've found is that the small minds know that some natives don't like the term "indians," and will deliberatley use it for some sort of cheap thrill, including right wing wacko politicians. When you think about it, the reason the government still uses it is because it was the term spelled out in the first Indian Act of 1876 and was therefore entrenched into the constitution. To change it would mean a constitutional amendment.

[DangerMouse]

Like I said before lets not be politically correct here.

First Nations call themselves whatever they want. They can deny their Canadian citizenship. The can and have done what they want to this point. Now having established these little facts, I suggest that we simply stop funding anything to do with aboriginal affairs. Clearly we are not entitled to any form of opinion regarding their culture heritage, race or whatever in the opinions of some. I must agree with them. So why should we give them a dime? They are not Canadian, have now regard for our laws and society and don't want to pay for the benefits of citizenship like everybody else in this nation is compelled to do.

So thank-you charter of rights and all the rest of your supporters or those like minded to your thinking, you have convinced me that there is only one solution to this problem. You should be free to do as you please and I suggest that Canada do exactly that. I will be writing to my MP and ask him to support my position on this. I will start over the next few months to gain access to public meeting and bring this point to the attention of citizens. I don't know how successful I will be but I am sure every little bit will help. Canada can realize huge savings from eliminating the expense of giving away money to people who are not Canadian, the money can be better spent at home.

As to your culture there folks, I no longer care to discuss it nor care to study it. You have made your feelings very clear. In my opinion you folks are racist and petty. There is no room in my heart for you and again I must thank you for changing my mind.

You shall reap what you sew people. Oh yes, good luck forcing this nation to do anything through OUR court system you bunch of fools.

Sometime I like to come on here just for a good laugh! Thanks Jerry Fartin! Good luckin with your beefin fart with the government!!

[jbg]

When you think about it, the reason the government still uses it is because it was the term spelled out in the first Indian Act of 1876 and was therefore entrenched into the constitution. To change it would mean a constitutional amendment. [/font]

Are you saying the repeal of any pre-1982 statute requires an amendment?

[charter.rights]

That wouldn't be my first choice. The overwhealming problem in those communities is 'First Nations' gangs. The Crew...the Indepedent Warriors, etc...etc.

Is 'redneck' a racial slur?

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

A Chuck U. Farley Production

---Cheech y Chong

Nah. It is gun-loving, law in their hands, road kill dining, right wing rednecks. Gang problems are not the primary source of problems in these major centres.