Tax revolt brewing; Mine's neighbours withholding property dues

[jennie]

posit:

This topic is going down hill fast. Ummm just a question about the Iroquois where do they live now, and why ?

Six Nations on the Grand River, Kahnawake near Montreal, Wahta in Muskoka, Awkwesasne in Quebec, Tyendinaga near Belleville, St Regis/Oka in the US Kahnesetake (Quebec or US ... not sure).

They "Iroquois" were given that name by their enemies, the French (black snakes). Their real name is the "Haudenosaunee" ... 'people of the longhouse' ... and they are the Haudenosaunee Confederacy of Six Nations which includes Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga and Tuscarora Nations.

Why?

[jennie]

no one has espoused genocide. only you.

the Indians welcomed the whiteman here? are you serious?

(ie: not me, I was born here)

Your lack of knowledge of the history of Canada is showing.

As a citizen, you are responsible for informing yourself of any historical issues that citizens may need to address.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jennie

[White Doors]

Your lack of knowledge of the history of Canada is showing.

As a citizen, you are now responsible for any historical issues too.

oh I see, now I just don't know what I'm talking about.

People are people. Equal rights for all. I believe that. You don't.

[M.Dancer]

oh I see, now I just don't know what I'm talking about.

People are people. Equal rights for all. I believe that. You don't.

Equaler rights for some, equal rights for others and superequal rights for certain.

[jennie]

oh I see, now I just don't know what I'm talking about.

People are people. Equal rights for all. I believe that. You don't.

No, I absolutely agree: Equal rights for all.

Equal right to inherit property rights, for example.

There are no 'special rights'. That's just propaganda fed to confuse the issues.

The rights afforded by the Constitution of Canada are the rights we all have.

The reason they are stated more explicitly for aboriginal people is because traditionally, their rights have not been respected in Canada (or elsewhere).

The historical infringements on their rights are due to greed for the resources from their land ... the money that fuels our economy (and others).

The new declaration from the UN makes this perfectly clear: It is simply a restatement of 'human rights' from other UN covenants, as a reminder that all of these rights also apply to Indigenous Nations within other countries.

[White Doors]

No, I absolutely agree: Equal rights for all.

Equal right to inherit property rights, for example.

There are no 'special rights'. That's just propaganda fed to confuse the issues.

The rights afforded by the Constitution of Canada are the rights we all have.

The reason they are stated more explicitly for aboriginal people is because traditionally, their rights have not been respected in Canada (or elsewhere).

The historical infringements on their rights are due to greed for the resources from their land ... the money that fuels our economy (and others).

The new declaration from the UN makes this perfectly clear: It is simply a restatement of 'human rights' from other UN covenants, as a reminder that all of these rights also apply to Indigenous Nations within other countries.

I see, so I should submit my tuition receipts to the GOC and just sit back and wait for the cheque?

Do you get headaches being so dishonest with yourself?

[jennie]

I see, so I should submit my tuition receipts to the GOC and just sit back and wait for the cheque?

Do you get headaches being so dishonest with yourself?

I am not sure what you are on about re your tuition receipts. Did they teach you something that wasn't the truth?

Buyer beware!

I see that there is no rational argument against what I have said.

Perhaps this thread has reached its useful limits, then.

There is, in truth, no legal or logical argument for why Indigenous Nations cannot claim the land that is theirs. It is only an economic argument ... one that starts with "Once upon a time Britain made treaties with Indigenous Nations of what we now call Canada..."

[M.Dancer]

There is, in truth, no legal or logical argument for why Indigenous Nations cannot claim the land that is theirs.

You mean besides the fact that other aboriginal claims may also be on the same land? Or that some claims are to be honest, not valid?

It's not black and white.

[AngusThermopyle]

of which probably 10% are aboriginal

Not even close, in fact, not even in the same Universe.

[jennie]

You mean besides the fact that other aboriginal claims may also be on the same land? Or that some claims are to be honest, not valid?

It's not black and white.

It isn't even land ownership that is the issue re the 4 blockades in Ontario: It is the USE of the land ... land that is already under claim.

"Existing aboriginal rights ARE recognized and affirmed".

However, the governments have continued to sign permits for mines, developments, clearcutting, etc. without regard to the fact that there is an aboriginal claim on that land.

Perhaps, in fact, it is because of it. The governments are trying to make sure that the land cannot be 'returned' to its rightful owners, either because it is developed, contaminated, or otherwise rendered useless.

There should not be development or use of lands in dispute until the claim is settled, unless all parties agree to the proposed use.

That is the point.

They are blockading to prevent uses of the land that they do not agree with, until such time as the claim itself is resolved.

I would like to know where our governments think they got a mandate to cause confrontation by continuing to permits uses of land in dispute without consulting the claimants. I do not think the Canadian people would support such a strategy if they were aware of it.

[Posit]

None of the current land occupations would have occurred if someone had made an attempt to develop the lands under claim. Money is not the issue. Getting the land back is all that matters to them.

[M.Dancer]

I would like to know where our Algonquin got the mandate to interfere with private propert on land that hasn't been awarded to them.

The land in question is covered by the Upper Canada Treaties.....the Algonquin were never populous in the region either prior to Europeans arriving or after, their claim is tenous at best.

If and when it is shown that the Algonquin do not have title or claim to the lands where the mining will take place, I'm sure you will be first calling for the band to pay compensation to the mine and her employees.

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/abori...nals4_e.html#uc

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps...oples/circa1630

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps...oples/circa1740

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps...oples/circa1823

[Posit]

None of the treaties cover east of Rice Lake in the text or in the agreements made with the Mississauga and Algonquin. There is that typical government slight of hand - they changed the maps to include lands not covered in the Huron-Robinson or the William Treaties. The fact is that all the land in eastern Ontario is unceded. The Algonquin's claim has already been admitted to by the government and so negotiation was on-going. However, the Algonquins felt it was improper for the government to provide permits to private companies to explore and mine lands they expected to be handed back during the agreements.

Like jennie said, the government often allows developers to move ahead knowing full well that once the land is developed, there is little chance it will be returned. On the other hand the Algonquins know that stopping development will prevent that inevitability from happening and it lights a fire under government to do more than obfuscate and delay the process.

[jennie]

I would like to know where our Algonquin got the mandate to interfere with private propert on land that hasn't been awarded to them.

The land in question is covered by the Upper Canada Treaties.....the Algonquin were never populous in the region either prior to Europeans arriving or after, their claim is tenous at best.

If and when it is shown that the Algonquin do not have title or claim to the lands where the mining will take place, I'm sure you will be first calling for the band to pay compensation to the mine and her employees.

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/abori...nals4_e.html#uc

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps...oples/circa1630

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps...oples/circa1740

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps...oples/circa1823

It is from rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown's Duty to Consult and Accommodate. (Pardon me for assuming...). The court has ruled that the Crown MUST consult with First Nations regarding all uses of their traditional and treaty lands, which may be under land claim or otherwise in dispute, but not resolved as yet. It is summarized in this paper:

http://www.lawsonlundell.com/resources/The...June%202006.pdf

X. Summary and Conclusion

Earlier case law (Haida and Taku) confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

Having a claim in negotiation or submitted definitely means the Crown "has knowledge" of the "potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title", and that should trigger the duty to consult.

The numbered treaties, concluded between 1871 and 1923, did not expressly incorporate the concepts of consultation, accommodation and justification in relation to land that is “required or taken up.” The recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree clarifies that the duty of consultation is triggered when Crown decisions or land use authorizations permit a potential interference with treaty rights.

Modern land claims agreements (and agreements currently under negotiation) opt to expressly identify the circumstances in which consultation is required and to define the requirements of consultation. These agreements generally include limiting language to clarify that, once the consultation requirements of the agreements have been met, the federal, provincial or territorial government will have no additional consultation obligations under the agreements.

Lawson Lundell LLP 44 www.lawsonlundell.com

Thus, the concept of consultation will continue to apply with respect to land and resource decisions on Crown land in the post-treaty context—whether historic numbered treaties or modern land claim agreements. While the numbered treaties differ dramatically in form from modern land claim agreements, there appears to be convergence on the requirements of the Crown’s duty to consult.

The sad, and very frustrating thing for Indigenous people and their supporters is that to date, the Crown in Ontario and Canada have ignored this law. They continue to authorize activities on land in dispute that are not in the interests of the aboriginal people who have a claim in on that land. The governments just ignore the law.

And that is why we have four blockades in Ontario ... they are asking the Crown to do its legal duty and consult ... and the Crown refuses to respond.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jennie

[jbg]

I saw news coverage of Ruby and Floyd Montour sitting in front of an earth moving machine yesterday. They are kind and brave and committed Six Nations Confederacy elders.

It's time to stop the political correctness, and treat criminals as criminals.

[jennie]

It's time to stop the political correctness, and treat criminals as criminals.

Meet Ruby ... the 'criminal' who sat in front of the earth mover with her 'criminal' husband Floyd.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6194247107440891215

[jennie]

Six Nations update ... province MAY discuss stopping development on Crown Land in the Haldimand Tract

(likely to be part of the settlement.)

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9799

Edited September 7, 2007 by jennie

[geoffrey]

Jennie, I offer to you the Thread Non-Proliferation Treaty. Here are the terms:

1 - Stop making a new thread for every possible slight spin on FN issues in Ontario.

2 - No more double posting.

And I promise to do the same

Charles Anthony, whenever he returns, will likely merge all of these threads anyways, so spare the man some time (and yourself some effort) and just keep everything to a thread, it's all the same overall topic!

Just a friendly recommendation.

[jennie]

Jennie, I offer to you the Thread Non-Proliferation Treaty. Here are the terms:

1 - Stop making a new thread for every possible slight spin on FN issues in Ontario.

2 - No more double posting.

And I promise to do the same

Charles Anthony, whenever he returns, will likely merge all of these threads anyways, so spare the man some time (and yourself some effort) and just keep everything to a thread, it's all the same overall topic!

Just a friendly recommendation.

This one is over, the other two can be merged. My mistake.

[jennie]

September 24, 2007

Algonquin Resist Uranium Mine

Sharbot Lake Algonquins, locals occupy mining site and enforce land claim

by Megan Hughes

The Dominion - http://www.dominionpaper.ca

Welcome to Frontenac County. Photo: Megan Hughes

Welcome to Frontenac County. Ottawa is an hour's drive to the northeast, Kingston a similar distance to the south. Algonquin Provincial Park lies to the northwest.

This beautiful lake is one of many in the centre of an ongoing uranium mining controversy. The 30,000 acres surrounding this lake in North Frontenac lies atop the edge of the Ottawa Valley’s Canadian Shield. This land is often referred to as the “Land ‘O’ Lakes” tourist region.

. . .

The Algonquins have told the court that they will not participate in the injunction orders. Citing Ipperwash and Oka as examples, the Algonquins state that injunctions do not take the place of discussion. They have invited the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to come and speak to them. As of this writing, that visit has not happened.

Frontenac Ventures Corp. has filed papers to sue the Algonquins and their supporters for $77 million dollars in "projected losses." They have also offered the government a way out of this issue. The mining company is willing to sell their staked land and business prospects in the area to the government. The starting price? $80 million. The Algonquins are planning to counter-sue both the mining company and the government for misuse of traditional lands.

The Algonquin protesters and their supporters remain at the site today. The aim of the peaceful protest, demonstrators say, is to remain in the mining base camp until Dalton McGuinty calls a moratorium on uranium mining in Ontario. Many local councils have already passed resolutions against uranium mining through their own channels. When Ottawa finally makes its move, those opposed to uranium mining worry that it may be all rain or all shine for Frontenac County, for Ottawa, for Kingston and all of the other towns and cities within uranium dust-blowing distance.

Update: On Saturday, September 22, two canoes will launch from the head of the Mississippi River in Ardoch, Ontario, and travel to the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, in order to demonstrate that the water systems connect and thus an immediate solution for the safety of all residents within air and water distance of the potential uranium mine must be found.

I didn't know Frontenac had begun negotiating with the government. That's a good sign. Not that the government will do anything about it, but perhaps Frontenac will start chasing them instead.

I will be very interested to see the outcome of the Algonquins' suit against the government.

Interesting about the canoe trip.

[jennie]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007...uin-070928.html

"Ontario issued mining claims … for Frontenac Venure on our lands, which are under comprehensive claim and weren't supposed to be being used at all. So we consider those claims invalid," said Sherman after the arrival of the canoes at Victoria Island following a six-day journey from Ardoch, about 113 kilometres southwest of Ottawa. "Uranium mining's not safe. Neither is exploration."

She said Frontenac Ventures has already built roads over sensitive wetlands and destroyed an aboriginal trapline, and the Algonquins fear the company will contaminate local waterways with its test drilling.

I didn't know there was that much damage already. This article doesn't mention it but I believe the Algonquins are pursuing a lawsuit against Frontenac Ventures for damages too.

Edited October 1, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007...ium-071002.html

Algonquins offer to end uranium site occupation

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | 5:35 PM ET

CBC News

Two First Nations communities have offered to end their three-month occupation of a potential uranium site in eastern Ontario if the province agrees to help resolve its dispute with a mining exploration company.

Chief Doreen Davis of the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation and Paula Sherman, co-chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, sent a letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty on Tuesday asked for mediation involving themselves and provincial and federal government representatives.

They proposed that during mediation they will suspend occupation of the site near Sharbot Lake, Ont., where Frontenac Ventures Corp. wants to do test drilling for uranium, provided that the company does not gain access to the site, and no mineral exploration and mining takes place during the mediation process.

The Algonquins say the land is theirs, they should have been consulted about the mining and they oppose uranium mining for environmental reasons.

They have already met twice with provincial representatives.

Protesters from the two communities have been blocking access to the site, about 60 kilometres north of Kingston since late June.

That is despite a temporary court injunction issued in August and a permanent injunction issued last week granting the company access to the site, and ordering police to arrest and remove the protesters.

The injunctions were requested by Frontenac Ventures, which is also suing the Algonquins for $77 million.

In September, the Ardoch and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations launched a $10-million countersuit against the company and a $1-billion lawsuit against the province.

..........................................................

Well that is kind of them to give the province another chance to obey the law, though they'll get nowhere until after the election, unless they confront McGuinty in the media. Likewise I doubt the police will do anything to clear the site until after the election.