We pay while Indians live in luxury

[geoffrey]

My issue was us paying for them to be held in hotels while their building to squat in gets fixed.

That would never happen if white people were the main 'victim' of this situation.

Maybe now would be a good time to stop showing your racism.

How am I showing racism? My statements are completely true. People should be treated equally without regard to their race. No squatter should be afforded anything, white, brown or purple.

[stignasty]

How am I showing racism?

Well, for one thing, you've started a thread called "We pay while Indians live in luxury." I don't think you can deny that this thread is racially centered. If it was another ethnic group that was being singled out it would still be racist. That's showing racism.

Additionally, you use plenty of loaded language to describe the people you claim not to be bigoted against. For instance, you continue to call them "squatters," even though that point has been disputed. Of course, calling them "displaced" or "homeless" might inspire some sympathy, and you certainly don't want that, do you? Would it not be acceptable to drop the strident term in favour of a more balanced and reasoned debate?

(This kind of thing is not restricted to this thread either. In another thread you stated ". . . that is being held up by ridiculous native bands that don't want transmission lines on their property." You simply couldn't state that they didn't want the lines on their property, you had to add that extra shot. So they're "ridiculous native bands," because they're looking after their own self-interest? Isn't that what they're supposed to be doing?)

You attempted to arouse an emotional response against the "squatters" who wouldn't have a problem if they didn't run down their own homes and disrupt the asbestos (post #9). Deny it all you like (and I have no doubt that you will), this is a racist thread.

[betsy]

Well, for one thing, you've started a thread called "We pay while Indians live in luxury." I don't think you can deny that this thread is racially centered. If it was another ethnic group that was being singled out it would still be racist. That's showing racism.

But if someone has a serious concern relating to a specific ethnic group, why is it racist to be precise?

Being a visible minority myself, I don't think it will sit well with me if Geoffrey had titled this: "We pay while visible minorities live in luxury." That neatly ties down every ethnic group into it, doesn't it?

The term, "visible minority" is, in my opinion, a racist label. Anyway, what is this "visible" stuff?

It implies there's something shameful about one's ethnicity?

I don't want my group to be lumped in an all-encompassing and vague umbrella of "visible minorities"......my group don't live in luxury hotels paid for by taxpayers.

[stignasty]

But if someone has a serious concern relating to a specific ethnic group, why is it racist to be precise?

Being a visible minority myself, I don't think it will sit well with me if Geoffrey had titled this: "We pay while visible minorities live in luxury." That neatly ties down every ethnic group into it, doesn't it?

The term, "visible minority" is, in my opinion, a racist label. Anyway, what is this "visible" stuff?

It implies there's something shameful about one's ethnicity?

I don't want my group to be lumped in an all-encompassing and vague umbrella of "visible minorities"......my group don't live in luxury hotels paid for by taxpayers.

Why not just leave ethnicity completely out of the equation? Why not use "Ousted residents anxious, scared" or even the more inflammatory "Prentice wants squatters to return" from the original articles quoted? Why not "We pay while squatters live in luxury?"

There is no need to mention the fact that these people are natives. There is no need to mention that they are part of any minority group, visible or otherwise. There is no reason to mention their ethnic origin, period.

[betsy]

Why not just leave ethnicity completely out of the equation? Why not use "Ousted residents anxious, scared" or even the more inflammatory "Prentice wants squatters to return" from the original articles quoted? Why not "We pay while squatters live in luxury?"

There is no need to mention the fact that these people are natives. There is no need to mention that they are part of any minority group, visible or otherwise. There is no reason to mention their ethnic origin, period.

Why shouldn't there be a need to mention these people as natives? They are natives!

And it's taxpayers who are footing the bill for this hotel fiasco! Among other things.

We cannot leave ethnicity out of the equation...since we are a multi-cultural society...comprised of and categorized by various ethnic groups.

Should we not specify that an "ASIAN GANG" or "ITALIAN MAFIOSO" is at the root of specific problems in society?

Besides, how do we correct the problem if we do not identify and acknowledge where the problem is coming from? Anyway, being clearly identified may shake the mentioned ethnic community to get their act together and do something as a community to help solve the problem.

[geoffrey]

Well, for one thing, you've started a thread called "We pay while Indians live in luxury." I don't think you can deny that this thread is racially centered. If it was another ethnic group that was being singled out it would still be racist. That's showing racism.

No, it's the truth. We are paying for Indian squatters to live in hotels (or were). How is that being racist? The Indian in this is very important... I was attempting to illustrate a strange complex in the Canadian society that you clearly confirm. The majority are extremely willing to extend more rights and privledges to minorities then they themselves have. It's something between a reverse majority tyranny (the majority makes itself suffer in order to make the minorities better) and an apartheid complex. Very strange indeed.

I'd be racist if I said all Indians are drunks... that's painting with too broad a brush. Saying that Indian (that is their legal status by the way, I'm not even talking race here) people have been removed from a building at our expense is not racist by any means.

Additionally, you use plenty of loaded language to describe the people you claim not to be bigoted against. For instance, you continue to call them "squatters," even though that point has been disputed. Of course, calling them "displaced" or "homeless" might inspire some sympathy, and you certainly don't want that, do you? Would it not be acceptable to drop the strident term in favour of a more balanced and reasoned debate?

They are squatters... they live in a building that they do not pay for. Some even work.

They are displaced or homeless, they have homes, that we pay for the upkeep and everything for... on top of their welfare for the unemployed.

It's not acceptable to drop the term if it's the truth. If a bunch of vagrant white drunks were camping permenantly in an abandoned building, I'd call them squatters too.

(This kind of thing is not restricted to this thread either. In another thread you stated ". . . that is being held up by ridiculous native bands that don't want transmission lines on their property." You simply couldn't state that they didn't want the lines on their property, you had to add that extra shot. So they're "ridiculous native bands," because they're looking after their own self-interest? Isn't that what they're supposed to be doing?)

They are being ridiculous in my opinion, they get great economic benefit from land leases and easements. And they are native bands. What up?

What the hell is racist about that? Most bands administration groups are run by plenty of white people so it's extremely far from anything racist.

You attempted to arouse an emotional response against the "squatters" who wouldn't have a problem if they didn't run down their own homes and disrupt the asbestos (post #9). Deny it all you like (and I have no doubt that you will), this is a racist thread.

I'm sorry stig but I'm not going to hold back a truthfull statement in fear of offending someone. It'll never happen.

The fact of the matter is that this hotel treatment, repair of a building that is not owned or sanctioned by the government... it simply would not have happened with a bunch of white drunks.

I'm fighting for racial equality in this country. Every race should get free hotels and their buildings fixed or none should. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but it should apply to all racial groups equally.

What exactly is racist about this then? I want the government funding applied equally. You want the government to give one group more based on their DNA. Please tell me, who's the racist?

[Ogimaa]

This is funny, we have all these anti "first immigrants" (great term) sitting here talking how we are all one, the talking of millions of years ago, how it was one big land mass blah blah blah. People can't even accept that were paying for our forefathers mistakes. If we are all from "black Eve", would you want this to happen to one of your family members, or would you, more likely, do what you could do to help?. If you truely believe that we are all one people, why make racist statements that do nothing but hinder the process? I really don't understand all of the hatred. Backed up by "evidence" that we are all one in the same. Sounds kinda hypocritical, don't ya think?

[geoffrey]

I personally have little sympathy for someone that can't sort out their own affairs with the bountiful assistance that the government offers in Canada.

I really could care less what colour their skin is.

I've defended all my statements and my defences have yet to be refuted. So when I hear that, I'll explain myself further. I'm no racist, in fact, it seems like I'm the only one in this thread looking for true racial equality in terms of rights and privledge from the government.

No one should have status based on blood lines or DNA. Bottom line.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So First Nations should have no special rights at all, I could live with that.

[Rue]

"Democracy trumps all claims of native title. If the majority of people living on land are not native and do not feel they are part of any native 'nation' then that land no longer belongs to the native 'nation'. No treaty or legal document is required - it is simply the practical and legal reality in Canadian and International law. Negotiations with native groups only apply to land that is not currently occupied.

Well now. Which international law are you referring to. You certainly are not referring to Canadian law because the Supreme Court of Canada has already made it very clear that native rights and compensation for past violations of treaties with natives are not dependent on their currently occupying land.

As for international law, I know of know international law that states the moment you occupy land

the former persons from whom you took the land lose their rights automatically. I think it is a bit more complex then that and I think you are misunderstanding the law of adversarial possession let alone

the legal meaning and application of treaties with the natives of Canada.

I will say it again, you can not simply snap your finger and the legal rights of natives vanish because you say so or are physically on land that they are not on. Its far more complex then that and neither

international law or domestic Canadian law, say what you have stated.

[Riverwind]

Well now. Which international law are you referring to. You certainly are not referring to Canadian law because the Supreme Court of Canada has already made it very clear that native rights and compensation for past violations of treaties with natives are not dependent on their currently occupying land.

The SCC is bound to follow the constitution as it is currently written. Parliament has the authority to change the constitution in whatever way it wants. If it was rewritten to severely limit aboriginal rights the the SCC would have no choice but to rule accordingly.

I will say it again, you can not simply snap your finger and the legal rights of natives vanish because you say so or are physically on land that they are not on. Its far more complex then that and neither international law or domestic Canadian law, say what you have stated.

I realize that these issues are very complex and I do believe that the only reasonable path to a resolution is a political compromise of some sort and that will likely require that some form of the concept of aboriginal title be preserved. However, it is a false argument to say that these treaties must be honoured because it is the 'law' because the laws can always be changed. That is why I say that the rights of the majority in a democracy will always supercede the rights of a priviledged minority.

[Rue]

I personally have little sympathy for someone that can't sort out their own affairs with the bountiful assistance that the government offers in Canada.

I really could care less what colour their skin is.

I've defended all my statements and my defences have yet to be refuted. So when I hear that, I'll explain myself further. I'm no racist, in fact, it seems like I'm the only one in this thread looking for true racial equality in terms of rights and privledge from the government.

No one should have status based on blood lines or DNA. Bottom line.

Lets cut the bull. Everytime there is a discussion on the legal issue of rights to land based on treaties written with the native peoples that were breached by the Canadian government, one of you always manages

to change the subject and turn it into racist dialogue.

It is a racist stereotype to suggest aboriginals living on reserves or anywhere else are receiving

"bountiful assistance" from the Canadian government. That is patronizing, demeaning clap trap and you do not speak for me or the majority of non native Canadians in this country who know damn well aboriginals

do not live a life of luxury in their reserves.

Next, how is it racist for aborginals to seek compensation for rights violated by the Canadian

government?

You even know what the word racism means? Aboriginals through no fault of their own, on the basis of

good-will entered into legal treaties with our government. Their right to seek compensation for it

being breached is basic, fundamental justice, no more no less.

Before you lecture aboriginal people on dna or anything else understand that this is a legal issue and

their status as aboriginals is not just racially based, it is legally based. They constitute legal entities

with legal rights.

The First Nations are a legal entity. You may want to reduce them to a race of people you feel no moral

responsibility for or express contempt for (because after all they just sit around in their fantastic lives living off of bountiful hand-outs) but for the majority of us who believe in the law, we understand that for

the law to work, we have to honour it.

Our responsibility to aboriginal peoples for breached treaties is first and foremost a legal one. Secondly it

is a moral one, because as decent human beings, we want to see our fellow human beings given the

same chances we have had.

What I find racist is this constant suggestion that natives are asking for things unfairly and we should just

ignore all the legal breaches and just carry on.

The Supreme Court of Canada, hell the Queen of England have made it clear that aboriginal peoples in Canada have independent legal rights.

Stop whining about it and trying to revise history and understand if we are to get anywhere in life it is not based on making insulting comments to aboriginals and suggesting they have it easy but to

transcend such hatred and deal with the legal issues.

Aboriginals will receive just compensation. What the formula will be and when it will be awarded depends on

the courts, the particular legal applications and the particular legal treaties that were breached.

Whether some of you like it or not, our laws respect aboriginal legal rights and will despite their

slowness and bumbling bureaucrats eventually come up with mutually acceptable compensation

plans.

Aboriginals are not the enemy of this country, they are one of its many natural resources. I will be damned

if I get into this native bashing everytime we discuss a legal issue.

I wish those of you that make sweeping generalizations about aboriginals and how they live go see how

they live before you make such comments.

There is plenty of land in this country for everyone.

Also can we clear one thing up once and for all. The concept of owning private property is a Western value and it comes from believing in the Queen and the idea that the Queen owns the land which we lease from her.

Private property is a legal fiction. It is more artificial and absurd in its creation and practice then the native belief that we all share the land and rights to land are collective not private and are linked to the manner in which we balance our physical human needs with the needs of the environment, rules of nature and other living forms we must co-exist with. we are friggin guests on this planet. None of us own the planet. Yah I have a deed to property. Get real its legal fiction to prevent us from killing each other over where we live. Those treaties we asked aboriginals to enter into with us, count for something. If they do not then none of your deeds mean anything either. You can't have it one way where only your deeds apply. The law does not work that way and never has. This idea you have only one system of legal rights and ignore the other is b.s. and you know it. All law depends on equity and fundamental fairness to work.

So you can go bash aboriginal concepts as to land all you want but natives are not the ones who polluted this planet and left it drowning in toxic waste or pollute its atmosphere unless you count smoking Chief cigarettes or farting as part of the global warming factor.

[gc1765]

No one should have status based on blood lines or DNA. Bottom line.

So I take it you don't believe in inheritance?

Isn't that what it is....inheriting land. If my parents own land, and I inherit it, no one would have a problem with that. If they sell it, and I inherit the money, no one would have a problem with that either.

[Riverwind]

Isn't that what it is....inheriting land. If my parents own land, and I inherit it, no one would have a problem with that. If they sell it, and I inherit the money, no one would have a problem with that either.

There is a huge difference. Because:

1) Any land you owned could be expropriated by the government for a price the the gov't thinks is fair.

2) Before you could receive the inheritance your parents estate would have to pay tax on the capital gain. The same thing would happen when the property is transferred to your children.

3) Most native privileges are not tangible assets that can be inherited (i.e. permission to hunt at night with lights). Nobody except natives are allowed to inherit special rights.

Aboriginal title are nothing more that a perverse form of feudualism where are certain group of people feel they deserve more than their neighbors for no reason other than who their parents were.

[Posit]

I think you should study "the law" more closely.

Nobody except natives are allowed to inherit special rights.

Native rights aren't "special" they are "pre-exisiting. That means that the limits placed on you by government do not apply to them. Consitutionally - legally - their rights supercede yours, not because they are "special" but because legally the governments have no "special" control over them.

So no matter what you "wish" the constitution to be, it guarantees that pre-existing native rights, or rights aquired through negotiation of treaties will continue. And the Supreme Court of Canada has held that those rights and practices cannot be limited in the same way that yours are. Just because you don't agree with the Constitution does it mean that it can be easily changed. Constitutional conferences are complex beasts and I can guarantee that there will not be one province or one delegate that would be willing to reopen it on the basis of your petition.

Land ownership in Canada is not a right and "legally" there are all kinds of problems in trying to define it as one. The fact is that all lands in Canada are under the control of the Crown - the Queen of Canada - and when the Crown believes it is prudent, it can rearrange the living arrangements of the Queens subjects with the stroke of a pen. However, the Queen has lease agreements and treaties with First Nations which require them to not only be consulted but to be compensated and protected for certain uses. The terms of these "legal" agreements are constantly being challenged and ratified by the courts as the details and the interpretations of the agreements are being revealed.

The issue of native rights, land ownership and resource protection is not a matter for the courts - as the Supreme Court has maintained - but is a matter of negotiation between First Nations and the Crown. New treaty negotiations are taking place all over Canada and their resolve will no doubt further release Native people from the constraints imposed on Canadians by law. If you "feel" that the laws limiting you are unfair then I suggest that you join some constitutional discussions and attempt to sway public opinion. However, you have no constitutional argument to arbitrarily limit people just because you feel slighted by the legal rights that were once afforded to all people but have since been limited by your willingness to be a Canadian.

[Riverwind]

Native rights aren't "special" they are "pre-exisiting. That means that the limits placed on you by government do not apply to them. Consitutionally - legally - their rights supercede yours, not because they are "special" but because legally the governments have no "special" control over them.

The constitution is the basis for all law within the country. Rights that natives have today exist only because the current constitution says they exist. If the democratic majority decided that they wanted to take these rights away then they have the power to do so. The idea that native rights are protected by some law which supercedes the constitution is a fantasy concocted by native activists.

Just because you don't agree with the Constitution does it mean that it can be easily changed. Constitutional conferences are complex beasts and I can guarantee that there will not be one province or one delegate that would be willing to reopen it on the basis of your petition.

I never said it was easy - however, it is an option that can be exercised if a political compromise that meets the needs of the majority is not possible.

First Nations and the Crown. New treaty negotiations are taking place all over Canada and their resolve will no doubt further release Native people from the constraints imposed on Canadians by law.

All treaties that I have seen to date affirm the principal that native territory is subject to Canadian law. Numerous SCC ruling have also confirmed that point. No matter what negotiations native groups may conclude they cannot escape the fact that the law that governs these agreements is the Canadian constitution and the Canadian court system. I realize that some native groups think that they could take their claims to the international court, however, that court has no power to enforce its rulings.

[Posit]

If the democratic majority decided that they wanted to take these rights away then.....

You can hypothesize all you want but it is really nothing more than "wishful" thinking. Your theory has no basis in law. However the fact that native rights supercede the constitution is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a ) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b ) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired..(15)

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

You should note that the Charter has no authority or prescription over any First Nations. It applies to Canadian citizens only and in essence limits your rights and freedoms while telling Canadians that aboriginal rights and treaty rights preempt (cannot limit) any limitation contained in the Charter.

All treaties that I have seen to date affirm the principal that native territory is subject to Canadian law.

I'll call your bluff as it is evident you haven't read any treaties. Try starting with legal documents including the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty. A treaty can only be made between two sovereign entities......

[Riverwind]

You should note that the Charter has no authority or prescription over any First Nations. It applies to Canadian citizens only and in essence limits your rights and freedoms while telling Canadians that aboriginal rights and treaty rights preempt (cannot limit) any limitation contained in the Charter.

The charter of rights is just one is part of the constitution. The quotes you provided are from different parts of the the same document and they could be removed at any time if Parliament plus the legislatures of 7 provinces agree. This fact is stated clearly in Section 35.1:

Section 35.1

The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

a- a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

b- the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item.

Note the wording. It clearly indicates that the government has the right to amend Section 25 after it consults with native groups. Now I realize that the requirement to consult means that amending these sections is politically complex but complex is not impossible. It all comes down to what the majority living in the country want. I don't see it happening any time soon but it _is_ an option and Canadians should remember this whenever they are confronted with absurd demands by aboriginal groups.

No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty.

Another myth created by aboriginal activists to justify their position.

A quote from the SCC judgement against a Mohawk: Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911

Under English colonial law, the pre-existing laws and interests of aboriginal societies were absorbed into the common law as rights upon the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty unless these rights were surrendered, extinguished or inconsistent with Crown sovereignty. The enactment of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 accorded constitutional status to existing aboriginal and treaty rights, including the aboriginal rights recognized at common law. However, the government retained the jurisdiction to limit aboriginal rights for justifiable reasons in the pursuit of substantial and compelling public objectives.

All aboriginal treaty lands are subject to Canadian law. There is no nation-nation relationship between sovereign entities. The state of Canada is the only sovereign entity and any lands belonging to native groups are simply governance jurisdictions with special powers within the state of Canada.

[Posit]

Nope.

Read the treaties first and then comment second. You are bluffing again. You are full of wishful thinking that is not indicative of the law as it stands today.

[Riverwind]

Read the treaties first and then comment second. You are bluffing again. You are full of wishful thinking that is not indicative of the law as it stands today.

ROTFL, I provide a quotation for a SCC judgement that makes an extremely clear statement about the limits placed on treaties within Canadian law and you claim I am bluffing. Sorry, your are full of it.

What you don't seem to understand is the court always re-interprets the text of old treaty documents so they apply to the realities today. Sometimes this re-interpretation suits aboriginals such as in recent cases allowing logging in the martimes and hunting with lights in BC. However, sometimes this re-interpretation goes against the mythology that aboriginal groups have created for themselves. IOW - the text of old treaty documents may talk about agreements between soveriegn nations but that does not mean the SCC will treat them as international agreements. The case law is quite clear: aboriginals have treaty rights which are protected under the current constitution but Canada is the sovereign state and all native land is subject to the laws of Canada. You can deny it if you like but that will not change anything.

[Posit]

Its all about context my friend. You need to read the entire SC decision and expound the issues being played out. BTW Mitchell was chastised by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy for taking this issue to Canadian court and was not an authorized agent of the Council when he did it. As far as they are concerned the decision has no bearing on their rights as a sovereign nation. There is however, going to be a refinement of that decision in the near future that will hold out the avenue - that of sovereignty - I have described to you. You see, through negotiation the issue of Haudenosaunee sovereignty will no longer be a question and I have it on good authority that the government has already agreed to the identification and is waiting for an opportune time to present to Canadians, like you......

Here's the teaser:

"Old policies don't apply. You're different. You are Her Majesty's Indian allies and are not subjects..."

Ron Doering, Canadian Federal Negotiator / Lawyer, Caledonia Negotiations Dec. 13, 2006.

That is a recognition by an official representative of the Crown.

The SC has been building new interpretations of existing laws over the last couple of years where they have conflicted with pre-existing aboriginal right. The reality is that they have made it easier for natives to exercise their universal rights in hunting, land resources and territorial claims. The SC has pointedly stated that new relationships with First Nations must be built. And because the definition of "pre-existing aboriginal rights" has not been clarified they tend to use a wide brush when interpreting them.

[Riverwind]

As far as they are concerned the decision has no bearing on their rights as a sovereign nation.

The court decision was binding and Mohawks can be convicted of a crime if they import goods without paying the appropriate taxes. The decision is evidence that Canadian law does apply to Haudenosaunee lands within the boundaries of Canada.

You see, through negotiation the issue of Haudenosaunee sovereignty will no longer be a question and I have it on good authority that the government has already agreed to the identification and is waiting for an opportune time to present to Canadians, like you......

The gov't just passed a resolution acknowledging the Quebequois as a 'nation' and it was a purely symbolic gesture with no legal significance. I would expect any recognition of the Haudenosaunee nation would be mostly symbolic but would incorporate provisions for self-government. That said, Canadian law will still apply no matter what form of self-government is negotiated. That is the template that the gov't is using to settle claims in other parts of the country.

The SC has pointedly stated that new relationships with First Nations must be built. And because the definition of "pre-existing aboriginal rights" has not been clarified they tend to use a wide brush when interpreting them.

The SCC has also said repeatedly that is necessary to reconcile these aboriginal rights with the sovereignty of the crown.

[mister_v]

I'll call your bluff as it is evident you haven't read any treaties. Try starting with legal documents including the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty. A treaty can only be made between two sovereign entities......

Neither of those documents is a treaty. Nor do those documents include any hint of the natives maintaining any kind of sovereignty. In fact, both documents go in the other direction. The Royal Proclamation says outright that the King's dominion extends over all territories, including lands inhabited by natives. The Haldimand Proclamation is implicit and Canadian courts have interpreted it as the Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown via that document and therefore are subjects of the Crown. Today the Crown is embodied in Canada and her provinces. Of course, the British never intended the Haldimand Proclamation to allow the Six Nations any kind of sovereignty.

[Rue]

If the democratic majority decided that they wanted to take these rights away then.....

You can hypothesize all you want but it is really nothing more than "wishful" thinking. Your theory has no basis in law. However the fact that native rights supercede the constitution is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a ) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b ) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired..(15)

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

You should note that the Charter has no authority or prescription over any First Nations. It applies to Canadian citizens only and in essence limits your rights and freedoms while telling Canadians that aboriginal rights and treaty rights preempt (cannot limit) any limitation contained in the Charter.

All treaties that I have seen to date affirm the principal that native territory is subject to Canadian law.

I'll call your bluff as it is evident you haven't read any treaties. Try starting with legal documents including the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty. A treaty can only be made between two sovereign entities......

I concur with your legal summary 100%. Excellent summary.

[Rue]

I'll call your bluff as it is evident you haven't read any treaties. Try starting with legal documents including the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty. A treaty can only be made between two sovereign entities......

Neither of those documents is a treaty. Nor do those documents include any hint of the natives maintaining any kind of sovereignty. In fact, both documents go in the other direction. The Royal Proclamation says outright that the King's dominion extends over all territories, including lands inhabited by natives. The Haldimand Proclamation is implicit and Canadian courts have interpreted it as the Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown via that document and therefore are subjects of the Crown. Today the Crown is embodied in Canada and her provinces. Of course, the British never intended the Haldimand Proclamation to allow the Six Nations any kind of sovereignty.

No I would have to disagree 100% and simply say three word Magna Carta Act. Read it before you make the assumption the Crown intended to supercede native sovereignty. King John was not that ignorant contrary to what you might think.