Petition to Abolish the Indian Act

[Pliny]

Now you are discussing what constitutes private property. It is really the heart of the matter. Differentiating between private property, public property, and sovereign claims to land. Real estate only becomes a problem when there is not enough of it.

There was plenty of it 400 years ago and there wasn't much of a problem. The resistance built over the next several centuries, and a lot of the antagonism was between the French and English Many parts of Europe changed hands several times, should that all be returned to the original settlers? What claim do they have to their ancestral lands?

I do not believe it is enough to say I was here first and this is all mine. The process that occurred over the centuries may appear to have been unfair, especially in retrospect and with today's standards of human rights applied, but there was some respect for aboriginal peoples and dealing with them or else they would have been annihilated. The standards of today are not the standards of yesteryear. Today we are appalled at many things that occurred in our past. Must we continue to point fingers at our ancestors and demand compensation from their descendants?

I do know that an individual accepting something without fair exchange feels worthless and continuing to be provided for and not having anything to offer in return drives the life out of him. If he has nothing to offer anyone it is a death sentence. You will see so many people retire and six months later die. Most will find a reason and purpose to go on. Those that don't, fade away fairly rapidly.

Pursuing a path of being entirely provided for is unrewarding and if you are not offering something of value in return, over time, you will suffer from lack of self-esteem and a poor self-image. As a culture it would be "cultural suicide". Of course, we can make it look like cultural genocide by redefining some terms or changing a few historical events to suit the purpose.

I warn against the current resentful and litigious course of action being advised by such as, jennie, who doesn't wish a different race to advise them, unless it is her advice. Art is an excellent example of how the Aboriginal culture contributes, not only to the future concept of the international Canadian cultural image but to their own self-image. Unfortunately, not all can be artists.

Winning largesse from government will be cause to party perhaps but partying already seems to have become a part of the perception of native culture. Is that what you wish to continue?

[jennie]

The process that occurred over the centuries may appear to have been unfair, especially in retrospect and with today's standards of human rights applied, but there was some respect for aboriginal peoples and dealing with them or else they would have been annihilated.

95% DOES CONSTITUTE ANIHILATION,

in scientific certainties.

This is a fact, not an opinion.

But in Canada they never legally surrendered.

And that's a fact too.

I warn against the current resentful and litigious course of action being advised by such as, jennie, who doesn't wish a different race to advise them, unless it is her advice.

I warn against warning people against something that is totally unintelligible and thus of no conseqence whatsoever for anyone ... kindalike a brainfart in the wind

Winning largesse from government will be cause to party perhaps but partying already seems to have become a part of the perception of native culture. Is that what you wish to continue?

blah blah blah ...

Don't talk to me about Canada's Band Council and AFN puppets ... keeping in mind I don't like politicians .... I know nothing about Band Councils AT all.

Do You?

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

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).

From the SCC Mitchell v. M.N.R. judgment: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001...3/2001scc33.pdf

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.

This statement clearly indicates that the pre-existing rights become part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it. This statement also indicates that any pre-existing right that were 'inconsistent with Crown sovereignty' were lost entirely.

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.

In other words, the aboriginal rights are subject Canadian law.

This is my favorite:

Counsel for the respondent does not dispute Canadian sovereignty. He

seeks Mohawk autonomy within the broader framework of Canadian sovereignty. The

respondent's claim is not just about physical movement of people or goods in and

about Akwesasne.

It is a mystery to me why you even bother to peddle the myth that native groups are sovereign entities today.

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.

Native groups in Canada are no longer sovereign nations which means they are Canadian by default. Any native that wishes to return to after travelling abroad Canada must have proof of Canadian citizenship (Mohawk passports are not accepted).

When you can prove that instead of just flapping you gums

I think you are the one that needs to provide proof to back up your claims. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

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?

I don't know ... did you INHERIT property rights from your family there? Do YOU have PROOF of it from the CROWN?

(What did you mean "destroyed" by the Crown?)

There is no question that Indigenous Peoples have land rights in Canada, and that those have not been adequately addressed.

Obviously I cannot show you proof since these are matters of negotiation.

I'll find a link though ...

[Pliny]

95% DOES CONSTITUTE ANIHILATION,

in scientific certainties.

This is a fact, not an opinion.

But in Canada they never legally surrendered.

And that's a fact too.

I warn against the current resentful and litigious course of action being advised by such as, jennie, who doesn't wish a different race to advise them, unless it is her advice.

I warn against warning people against something that is totally unintelligible and thus of no conseqence whatsoever for anyone ... kindalike a brainfart in the wind

Winning largesse from government will be cause to party perhaps but partying already seems to have become a part of the perception of native culture. Is that what you wish to continue?

blah blah blah ...

Don't talk to me about Canada's Band Council and AFN puppets ... keeping in mind I don't like politicians .... I know nothing about Band Councils AT all.

Do You?

Look up annihilation. (It has two "n's") I mean it in it's literal sense. 95% - You're demagoguery is showing.

Unintelligible? Hardly. I think what I said is quite clear. Perhaps there is another word you don't comprehend. Also fixed ideas make alternatives difficult to comprehend, if that is the case, take a look.

Party hardy!

Edited September 5, 2007 by Pliny

[jennie]

Look up annihilation. (It has two "n's") I mean it in it's literal sense. 95%

Thanks for the sp.

[Posit]

From the SCC Mitchell v. M.N.R. judgment: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001...3/2001scc33.pdf

This statement clearly indicates that the pre-existing rights become part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it. This statement also indicates that any pre-existing right that were 'inconsistent with Crown sovereignty' were lost entirely.

In other words, the aboriginal rights are subject Canadian law.

This is my favorite:

It is a mystery to me why you even bother to peddle the myth that native groups are sovereign entities today.

Native groups in Canada are no longer sovereign nations which means they are Canadian by default. Any native that wishes to return to after travelling abroad Canada must have proof of Canadian citizenship (Mohawk passports are not accepted).

I think you are the one that needs to provide proof to back up your claims.

Unfortunately your interpretation at law is simplistic and inaccurate.

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.

This statement clearly indicates that the pre-existing rights become part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it. This statement also indicates that any pre-existing right that were 'inconsistent with Crown sovereignty' were lost entirely.

Wrong. This means that the Crown became responsible for the "pre-existing rights and laws". Nowhere is that meant that the Crown or Canada could change pre-existing rights or law. This in fact declares that unless First Nations extinguished those or surrendered those rights they were still in effect. Further, the court has ruled that if a First Nation has no specific law concerning a particular act, then the Crown has the right in common law to impose their laws in absence. Such is the case in the requirement to register firearms. When the idea first came out many First Nations quickly created their own gun registry that is not shared with the Canadian one. This exempts natives from having to register any fire arms with the Canadian registry.

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.

In other words, the aboriginal rights are subject Canadian law.

Wrong. In other words Canadian citizens have to recognize those pre-existing rights and laws as if they are the our own.

The last sentence fully explains that our government continues to usurp aboriginal law and treaties in favour of stealing land and resources from them. In law, that statement will be tested and reduced to insignificant in time by other learned judges.

Mike Mitchell was the Band Chief of Akwesasne at the time he made this challenge. Of course being a product of the Crown he would have acknowledged Canadian sovereignty in that context. However, the Confederacy has clearly stated since then that Mitchell had no authority to make that claim for all Iroquois people. The Irquois Confederacy has asserted that they have never given up their sovereignty. Canada, its negotiators, its lawyers and the Governor General have all acknowledged their sovereignty since Mitchell was heard. That's all that matters in law.

Further, the only identification that First Nations need to get into Canada and back to their territories is a Band Status Card. Passports are only required abroad and from what I understand the Iroquois passports are valid in about 26 countries so far. When US Homeland Security implements the requirement for Canadian citizens to hold passports while traveling in the US, the Iroquois will again be exempted. They have negotiated a new identification card with Homeland Security that the Confederacy will issue to their citizens.

[jennie]

From the SCC Mitchell v. M.N.R. judgment: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001...3/2001scc33.pdf

This statement clearly indicates that the pre-existing rights become part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it. This statement also indicates that any pre-existing right that were 'inconsistent with Crown sovereignty' were lost entirely.

In other words, the aboriginal rights are subject Canadian law.

This is my favorite:

It is a mystery to me why you even bother to peddle the myth that native groups are sovereign entities today.

Native groups in Canada are no longer sovereign nations which means they are Canadian by default.

I have to say riverwind ... you were spinning along just fine until you just totally lost your thread of credibility on that one!!

"Canadian by default" ... too friggen funny!!!

No ... Canadian only by surrender ... which did.not.happen.

There is nothing to say they are Canadian citizens unless individuals choose it to be so.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[White Doors]

I have to say riverwind ... you were spinning along just fine until you just totally lost your thread of credibility on that one!!

"Canadian by default" ... too friggen funny!!!

No ... Canadian only by surrender ... which did.not.happen.

There is nothing to say they are Canadian citizens unless individuals choose it to be so.

He just showed you where.

You are wrong. period.

No amount of emoticons is going to change that.

[Riverwind]

Wrong. This means that the Crown became responsible for the "pre-existing rights and laws". Nowhere is that meant that the Crown or Canada could change pre-existing rights or law.

That is a different argument. Here I am pointing out that aboriginal rights are part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it. The phrase 'absorbed into the common law as rights' is unambiguous - there are no other reasonable interpretations.

The 1982 constitution also makes it clear that these rights can be changed if the amending process described in the document is followed. I realize that some native activists have convinced themselves that these rights are absolute, however, this line of thinking is flawed because it presumes there is some higher authority capable of enforcing the law. There is no higher authority and all laws can be changed if the constitution is changed.

Wrong. In other words Canadian citizens have to recognize those pre-existing rights and laws as if they are the our own.

As I said, these rights are part of Canadian law and are subject to Canadian law but like all laws they must not infringe on rights unless there is a compelling public good.

The last sentence fully explains that our government continues to usurp aboriginal law and treaties in favour of stealing land and resources from them. In law, that statement will be tested and reduced to insignificant in time by other learned judges.

Wishful thinking. The current case law makes it very clear that Canada is the sovereign state and that Canadian law applies and that aboriginal rights can be infringed if there is a compelling public reason. There is no reason to believe that future judgements will be any less clear on this point.

Canada, its negotiators, its lawyers and the Governor General have all acknowledged their sovereignty since Mitchell was heard. That's all that matters in law.

Not really. The word sovereignty can be used to mean autonomy just like the word nation can mean an ethnic group or a sovereign state. There can only be one sovereign power and that is Canada. The government is playing word games with the natives in order to keep them at the table.

Further, the only identification that First Nations need to get into Canada and back to their territories is a Band Status Card.

A document which is issue by the Canadian government

[M.Dancer]

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

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.

On the same site.....

Scientists studying the genetic signatures of Siberians and American Indians have found evidence that the first human migrations to the New World from Siberia probably occurred no earlier than 18,000 years ago.

The new estimates undermines arguments for colonisation as far back as 30,000 years ago, but reinforces archaeological findings and a linguistic theory that most American languages belong to a single family called Amerind.

New World Newcomers: Men's DNA supports recent settlement of the Americas

Ben Harder

Genetic differences among the Y chromosomes of Central Asian and Native American men bolster the argument that people first reached the Americas less than 20,000 years ago, according to two groups of anthropologists. The new data also support the idea that a single wave of settlers gave rise to all native South Americans, they hold.

[jennie]

Here I am pointing out that aboriginal rights are part of Canadian law and do not exist outside it.

Indigenous rights are human rights and they are matters of International law as well.

Your statement "do not exist outside" Canadian law is incorrect.

Aboriginal rights exist in Canadian law only because they exist in fact, and cannot be ignored.

Their inherent land rights cannot be disputed. Only the implementation can be played with.

[guyser]

Their inherent land rights cannot be disputed. Only the implementation can be played with.

Only if they can prove they occupied that land when Sovereignty came to be.

[Posit]

Indigenous rights are human rights and they are matters of International law as well.

Your statement "do not exist outside" Canadian law is incorrect.

Aboriginal rights exist in Canadian law only because they exist in fact, and cannot be ignored.

Their inherent land rights cannot be disputed. Only the implementation can be played with.

I agree jenny. The Charter merely recognizes aboriginal rights. It cannot and does not prescribe them.

Only if they can prove they occupied that land when Sovereignty came to be.

Not quite guyser. They just have to prove they have a right to the land that preempts the colonial settlement.

[guyser]

.

Not quite guyser. They just have to prove they have a right to the land that preempts the colonial settlement.

They have to show exclusive occupation by a defined society.

Proving a right to the land is insufficient. They need to prove that they lived and used the land prior to Europeans (Brits/soveriegnty) arriving and cannot use the fur trade or other commercial use as proof .

[Riverwind]

Indigenous rights are human rights and they are matters of International law as well.

International law is only a political tool because it is not enforceable.

Your statement "do not exist outside" Canadian law is incorrect.

The legally enforceable rights that aboriginals in Canada have only exist within Canadian law.

Aboriginal rights exist in Canadian law only because they exist in fact, and cannot be ignored.

They exist because the BNA and the 1982 constitution choose to include them. Like all rights they are artificial constructs that have no meaning outside of the legal/constitutional framework that defined them.

Their inherent land rights cannot be disputed.

Sure they can. A change to the constitution would wipe them out and there is nothing aboriginals could do about it other than attempt to sway the political process to prevent it from happening. Edited September 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

International law is only a political tool because it is not enforceable.

The legally enforceable rights that aboriginals in Canada have only exist within Canadian law.

They exist because the BNA and the 1982 constitution choose to include them. Like all rights they are artificial constructs that have no meaning outside of the legal/constitutional framework that defined them.

Sure they can. A change to the constitution would wipe them out and there is nothing aboriginals could do about it other than attempt to sway the political process to prevent it from happening.

Canadian law seems to me to be reasonably consistent with International law, and it is all a matter of human rights, and it is the same human rights for all. "artificial"? ... no ... human constructs ... ways that humans co-exist.

Call me when the Constitution is changing We BOTH know how soon that will be!

[Posit]

Proving a right to the land is insufficient.

Not for the government or the SCoC. That's all that matters. And while I respect your right to have an opinion in the issue, in the end it has no value.

[geoffrey]

Not for the government or the SCoC. That's all that matters. And while I respect your right to have an opinion in the issue, in the end it has no value.

Proving a right to the land is sufficient, but impossible. You claim to tell me that all Indian claims are actually where they were evicted by the government? Previous settlements that were abandoned are obviously not claimable, roaming grounds not claimable. Currently, occupied settlements were an eviction by the government occured are very rare. They are the only ones worthy of settlement, if any.

[Posit]

Proving a right to the land is sufficient, but impossible. You claim to tell me that all Indian claims are actually where they were evicted by the government? Previous settlements that were abandoned are obviously not claimable, roaming grounds not claimable. Currently, occupied settlements were an eviction by the government occured are very rare. They are the only ones worthy of settlement, if any.

Nope. Claims are where the natives say they are. The right to the land is proven over and over again not by continuous occupation but a pattern of contiguous occupations occurring over a number of generations / centuries. The rights are also entrenched in treaties and agreements with other First Nations, recognizing traditional hunting and fishing areas, or winter and summer camping grounds.

The clue to a successful claim is finding any means to define their territory. Once this is established the right becomes automatic. The government must then prove that they not only willingly gave up that right, but that the agreement that was written also represents the understanding of the oral agreement when it was made. This is why the SCoC ruled that oral history must be given equal or better weight in these cases, since the Crown officers, settlers and business men were prone to lying and cheating the natives. it is also because the onus is on the government to prove legitimate transfers that they have chosen the route of negotiation. It seems the courts require a greater burden of proof than just some bureaucrat's say so.

[geoffrey]

The rights are also entrenched in treaties and agreements with other First Nations, recognizing traditional hunting and fishing areas, or winter and summer camping grounds.

I'd be fine with this if they gave up all rights to modern government support and lived like they needed it, but they don't.

The clue to a successful claim is finding any means to define their territory. Once this is established the right becomes automatic.

They do need evidence to define it though.

My question. Why does Ontario have so many more claims than Alberta? Your Indians hung out at farming like establishments, our's roamed about. You'd think our's would have more 'hunting grounds.'

I have never recalled any Indian claiming a right to head smashed in buffalo jump or similar jump sites on the plains.

[Posit]

First of all, it has only been about 40 years that natives could hire lawyers to pursue claims against the government and money has never been easily obtained. It has taken those 40 years for First Nations to research their claims and provide the necessary proof the government demanded in going to court. Then when the scales tipped in favour of settlement the government removed the claims from the court stream and created the Lands Claims process. The level of proof changed from having to satisfy the courts to trying to appease some stuck-up bureaucrats that weren't budging on any native getting more than he himself was entitled too.

The land reclamation process, whereby natives occupy and reclaim the land changes the whole process back to negotiation - where the courts have intimated for decades that settlement should occur. The reclamations are only made on lands that the evidence support as belonging to that nation. With the evidence and with an interruption in the economic stability and development of lands, the government has its back against the the wall. On one side are the developers and prospecting companies yelling at the government to do something and on the other side are the natives holding the writ issued by the SCoC that demands government consult and accommodate First Nations on lands under claim, or in which they have a right.

Ontario doesn't have any more claims than any other province. It is just that Ontario is first out of the gate since many of the nations here are relatively close, talk frequently about their progress and share information and strategies. I do know that a number of Mohawk delegations have been traveling out west in the last couple of years doing the same information sharing. It is only a matter of time before the natives in the western provinces get impatient and start using some of the more well executed plans of forcing the issue. Plus the western government and the federal government are reluctant to engage many of the First Nations, since there are relatively only a few bona fide treaties and territorial rights involved huge tracts of unceded lands. In the case of BC they have been trying to reach treaty agreements with little success. Few First Nations are willing to give up land for cash and for the most part that's about all the government has been offering.

[White Doors]

It is just that Ontario is first out of the gate since many of the nations here are relatively close, talk frequently about their progress and share information and strategies.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the mohawk are originally American, not Canadian and are more litigious than traditional Canadian Indian bands.

[Posit]

The Mohawk like the rest of the Iroquois Confederacy have been in southern Ontario for 1000 years. The main government was in the area that is now New York State, but you have to remember that the US-Canada border didn't exist then (and for the Iroquois doesn't exist today). The area on the north shore of Lake Ontario from Montreal (St Lawrence) to the Sarnia (St. Clair River) and north to the Trent River were part of that territory.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Posit

[White Doors]

At the time Europeans first arrived in North America, the Confederacy was based in what is now the northeastern United States and southern Canada, including New England, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Ontario, and Quebec.

mostly the USA.

Algonquins were a true Canadian Indian band, not the Iroquois.

as far as territory, the 6 nations should have 75% of the claims with the US government, not Canada.