Petition to Abolish the Indian Act

[Pliny]

Fact correction:

Wrong! The oldest find of human occupation of the Americas is 60,000 years with the oldest human remains found in South Carolina at 45,000 years. This represents an occupation of North America that precedes the occupation of Europe by 10,000 years.

My information of 11,000 years comes from a book by Jared Diamond called "Guns, Germs and Steel". I don't believe it is incorrect. You may find instances of claims to earlier times but man appeared on the scene only about 60,000 years ago. So you say our ancestors all appeared at the same time?

[bush_cheney2004]

...If there is anything to learn I would suggest it is something that has been forgotten and that is what George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Agreed..."justice" sips meekly from the fountain of POWER. It has always been so, even when so called First Nations went about enslaving and slaughtering each other for the very same reasons.

[M.Dancer]

My information of 11,000 years comes from a book by Jared Diamond called "Guns, Germs and Steel". I don't believe it is incorrect. You may find instances of claims to earlier times but man appeared on the scene only about 60,000 years ago. So you say our ancestors all appeared at the same time?

There is zero evidence for mankind being in the Americas before 20,000 BC, and that's being quite liberal about the numbers.

[jennie]

The people did intermingle and would have established common communities benefiting each other but education and religion were forced upon them from authority whether they liked it or not. They obviously did not like it but were treated in that manner for centuries and kept separated from Europeans on reserves. Something that perhaps left natives behind and resisting acceptance.

...

So don't talk to me about government injustices to natives. The government lost the ability to deliver justice to society because it never did treat everyone equally.

If there is anything to learn I would suggest it is something that has been forgotten and that is what George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

I do not blame government for doing what it considers it's job and favoring and protecting its citizens over non-citizens. It would be failing in it's purpose if it didn't. It's failure is in not treating it's citizens equally and consequently not being able to fairly deliver justice.

That is why if you are appealing to government today for justice I know that it is not justice that is sought. Special privilege is being sought because, and aboriginals should know it quite well, justice cannot be delivered by an agency that grants privilege and cannot see equality, because they also will equate it as code for "keeping all the land and resources". One thing though, force will beget force.

You have made an eloquent argument for Indigenous Nations to 'take care of business' themselves, ignoring our governments that are incapable of delivering justice. I agree that the repeated pleas to government fall on deaf ears because justice is not their purpose.

The question then becomes what course of action do they follow. The answer, of course, is that they, being non-citizens anyway, follow their own law not Canada's, protect their own land, negotiate their own terms with the corporations that want to do business on their land.

Funny thing ... when they do that ... as the Six Nations Confederacy has ... our government gets apopleptic and wants to be involved in those negotiations. Funny thing, because they have refused all requests to get involved up until the negotiations became fruitful!!

However, as you said, they should not bother trying to deal with our governments. I have come to that conclusion myself.

All across the country, in many locations, Indigenous people are STANDING and protecting their land from invasion by corporations or Canada's armed forces. If their land is invaded, they will defend themselves and their land. As you say, force begets force.

Since the governments will play no role, this is what we are left with: Multiple standoffs with our armed forces facing unarmed people who are protecting the environment for all of us. This is Canada's 'condition' for the forseeable future.

[M.Dancer]

Since the governments will play no role, this is what we are left with: Multiple standoffs with our armed forces facing unarmed people who are protecting the environment for all of us.

I think there's a little exageration in this line.

1)Multiple implies more that 1. Please show multiple incidents where the armed forces have been used.

2)"who are protecting the environment for all of us"

That's a niave crook

[jennie]

I think there's a little exageration in this line.

1)Multiple implies more that 1. Please show multiple incidents where the armed forces have been used.

2)"who are protecting the environment for all of us"

That's a niave crook

I am using the term 'armed forces' generically to refer to police as well, who are armed. Apologies for confusion.

Standoffs currently in progress in Ontario, with Canadian armed 'forces' (police) involved

Six Nations

Sharbot Lake

Grassy Narrows

Previous in Canada

Burnt Church

Oka - 3 deaths, military and police involved

Gustafsen Lake

Red Hill Valley - agent provocateur

Kahnawake - multiple injuries from rock throwing, soldiers throwing teens off Mercier bridge

Ipperwash - 1 death

It seems to me that some Canadians decry the use of blockades naively: our governments provide no other course of action, and continue to aggressively plunder Indigenous land for resources. There is no other possible outcome: Canada is, intentionally and aggressively, as both the Algonquins and Six Nations have acknowledged, committing acts of war against Indigenous Nations.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

The answer, of course, is that they, being non-citizens anyway, follow their own law not Canada's, protect their own land, negotiate their own terms with the corporations that want to do business on their land.

A convient dodge to avoid following the law.

Shame it's not true.

First Nations are full citizens and fully enfranchised.

[M.Dancer]

I am using the term 'armed forces' generically to refer to police as well, who are armed. Apologies for confusion.

If they weren't breaking the law there would be no need of police.

[Posit]

My information of 11,000 years comes from a book by Jared Diamond called "Guns, Germs and Steel". I don't believe it is incorrect. You may find instances of claims to earlier times but man appeared on the scene only about 60,000 years ago. So you say our ancestors all appeared at the same time?

Your information is outdated and was originally based on some unsubstantiated guesses.

There is zero evidence for mankind being in the Americas before 20,000 BC, and that's being quite liberal about the numbers.

You really should catch up on your reading:

New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago

You'll have to scroll down a ways to find it. BUT even this is becoming outdated as more recent archaeolgical research is available.

[jennie]

If they weren't breaking the law there would be no need of police.

You are mistaken.

It is Canada that is breaking the law.

... the Constitution, in fact, by ignoring "the Duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate" as ordered by the SCoC.

Canada has no legal claim to the land in question.

[Riverwind]

You'll have to scroll down a ways to find it. BUT even this is becoming outdated as more recent archaeolgical research is available.

The latest research indicates that NA was populated with successive waves over a long period of time and each wave would result in displacements and assimilation. Maybe we should do some DNA analysis to determine which people were are decendents of the 'true' aboriginals as opposed to the more recent migrants from asia.

[jennie]

The latest research indicates that NA was populated with successive waves over a long period of time and each wave would result in displacements and assimilation. Maybe we should do some DNA analysis to determine which people were are decendents of the 'true' aboriginals as opposed to the more recent migrants from asia.

That has been done, though I can't find it right now. It does show evidence of earlier arrivals and later. However, they were all here thousands of years before Europeans. That is all that is required to have ownership of the land. When or how they got here is irrelevant.

[Posit]

The latest research indicates that NA was populated with successive waves over a long period of time and each wave would result in displacements and assimilation. Maybe we should do some DNA analysis to determine which people were are descendants of the 'true' aboriginals as opposed to the more recent migrants from asia.

More modern evidence indicates that NA populations began in the south and migrations took place northward. The Bering Strait Ice Bridge theory has been totally discounted and DNA evidence suggests that the migration might have taken place in the opposite direction - from the Americas to Asia. Currently this is one of the avenues pursued by anthropologists.

However, it is clear that the English in Great Britain have been conquered many times over by various peoples and intermixed with half breeds of Italian German and even perhaps some East Indian or Africans. If we were to examine their DNA it is quite possible the displaced and homeless British don't even have an indigenous claim to Great Britain.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Posit

[Riverwind]

DNA evidence suggests that the migration might have taken place in the opposite direction - from the Americas to Asia.

This theory is not taken seriously by many.

If we were to examine their DNA it is quite possible the displaced and homeless British don't even have an indigenous claim to Great Britain.

A point which demonstrates the absurdity of *all* indigenous claims. The people living in a territory today are the only people who have a right to the terroritty. Prior occupation is irrelevant. Edited September 4, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

This theory is not taken seriously by many.

A point which demonstrates the absurdity of *all* indigenous claims. The people living in a territory today are the only people who have a right to the terroritty. Prior occupation is irrelevant.

THEY ARE STILL HERE ! Their rights are still intact.

What you have just demonstrated is our responsibility to honour the treaties if we wish to maintain our right to be here.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

THEY ARE STILL HERE ! Their rights are still intact.

No they aren't. The people who were living in NA 500 years ago are all dead. There may be some people with similar DNA but it is rediculous to claim that these people have some special claim on the land because of their DNA.

[jennie]

No they aren't. The people who were living in NA 500 years ago are all dead. There may be some people with similar DNA but it is rediculous to claim that these people have some special claim on the land because of their DNA.

What is ridiculous is what you just said! It bears no resemblance to the law. (Do you just make your own up as you go along?)

They have continuous occupancy of their ancestral lands, legal possession by anyone's terms ... except Canada because Canada behaves as if it is above even its own laws.

I repeat: The only lawbreaker here is Canada.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

I repeat: The only lawbreaker here is Canada.

The only laws that apply are Canadian laws. And yes some of those laws do give people special rights based on their DNA, however, that does not make them any less rediculous.

[jennie]

The only laws that apply are Canadian laws. And yes some of those laws do give people special rights based on their DNA, however, that does not make them any less rediculous.

Why should our DNA entitle us to take their land without payment?

[geoffrey]

Why should our DNA entitle us to take their land without payment?

Do they have a land title to back that up? Nope.

There are very few areas that could be described as permenant settlements still in existance. Alot of this is based on traditional area, which is, tough shit. If they were living in a house when the government took it, maybe. But swaths of land because someone might have walked there once is not reasonable. Existing settlements, maybe. Alot of these have been signed over anyways, once that's done, you can't have it back. Like the Six Nation's and their endless whining.

[jennie]

Do they have a land title to back that up? Nope.

There are very few areas that could be described as permenant settlements still in existance. Alot of this is based on traditional area, which is, tough shit. If they were living in a house when the government took it, maybe. But swaths of land because someone might have walked there once is not reasonable. Existing settlements, maybe. Alot of these have been signed over anyways, once that's done, you can't have it back. Like the Six Nation's and their endless whining.

Such malice. Why? There is no need for such.

They certainly do have evidence to back up their claims. Of course they do.

I am going to start a new thread, though, to clarify what the issues are in general, as they seem to be poorly understood by some here.

[geoffrey]

They certainly do have evidence to back up their claims. Of course they do.

Like what? Verbal tradition isn't exactly admissible in court. I want to see proof of current inhabitation that was destroyed specifically by the Crown. If they don't have it, they shouldn't get anything. If you leave a place, you can't claim it later.

My family was the first to settle in the area surrounding Montreal. Should I have a land claim there because I am descendant of the first people of that region of Quebec?

[Posit]

If you examine the "title" system in Canada, it is nothing more than a license to use the land. Under that title the Crown reserves the right to mine and harvest minerals and to expropriate (revoke your license) when they feel it is in the public interest. So your requiring proof of title is nothing but a waste of paper.

Verbal tradition isn't exactly admissible in court.

Actually you are wrong. Oral tradition is not only accepted in court, but the SCoC ruled that it must be given equal weight as the British written record when determining the content of a treaty or agreement. That's because all agreements and treaties were oral agreements before the British wrote them down and in some cases altered the agreements.

So not only is there contiguous occupation of Canada by First Nations, the written historical records confirm the occupation. So in order to defend against the claim the government must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a capitulation or agreement to abandon the traditional territories.

The only laws that apply are Canadian laws. And yes some of those laws do give people special rights based on their DNA, however, that does not make them any less rediculous.

Wrong again. Treaty law and pre-existing rights exceed Canadian law and are the same weight as Crown law (the Charter is "Crown law"). So in determining applicability the same tests must apply. Canada must prove that First Nations capitulated their rights to become Canadians.

[Riverwind]

Treaty law and pre-existing rights exceed Canadian law and are the same weight as Crown law

There are no laws other than those defined by the Canadian constitution. Some laws are simple statutes and some laws are defined by the constitution. All laws are subject to the democratic process and can be changed if Canadians want (50%+1 vote in all provinces would get any constitutional amendment passed).

Canada must prove that First Nations capitulated their rights to become Canadians.

All status Indians are Canadians whether they like it or not. Canada is the sovereign government that makes and enforces all laws on its territory. The Canadian government has some legal obligations to natives but that does not change the fact that Canada is the sovereign government. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

.....can be changed if Canadians want (50%+1 vote in all provinces would get any constitutional amendment passed).

Wrong. Any change to the Charter must be made at a Constitutional Conference where the politicians have the final say - regardless of what 50%+1 of Canadians think or want. In weighing out their decisions, politicians are charged with examining any proposals with an eye to the existing Charter, the meaning of human rights and the purpose of the amendment. Your 50%+1 wouldn't make it to the agenda of the first meeting if it would mean reducing any rights already contained in the Charter or those that have been further interpreted by the SCoC.

Whether you dream it or not, no where in the Constitution - Crown Law- or in Canadian domestic law does it state that First Nations, aboriginal people or metis are "Canadian citizens" Rather treaties, historical records and even the Governor General have been clear that First Nations are sovereign nations who have a special relationship with the Crown (not Canada as a government). Further under international law, the only way that one group of people can be considered citizens of another sovereign nations is if the group willingly joins and accepts the terms of citizenship. When you can prove that instead of just flapping you gums about, then we might be able to get into the intricacies of the obligation of treating citizens under sovereign nations - which demonstrates by their treatment of native people that our government also believes that native people are sovereign.

Your wishful thinking about the way things "might be" do not resemble the reality of the way things are. Sorry you are disappointed but there isn't much you can do about it except perhaps lead a revolt that no doubt would fall into apathy.