Occupations, barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issue

[Rue]

Yes but we did find out through the Six Nations side that our government was throwing money at them with no basis or accountability to where the values came from. It was a brain-dead move that not only our negotiators look like morons but it demoralizes the whole process. I do believe that the Six Nations side is also waiting for the government to come up with all that documentation they said they had that Six Nations had sold the lands in question. Seems the last British records the Confederacy negotiators put on the table prove they didn't.

Estoppel IS being applied Geoffrey since the government promised to maintain a trust of land and money on behalf of Six Nations. It turns out they used the money and the land for their own interests. The occupation of the land prevents development which in turn prevents a further damage to that trust relationship. The government has lied about their trusteeship and that is sufficient cause to use estoppel as a legal reasoning for the reclamations and blockades.

Highways passing through First Nations territories are not OURS. We have an agreement of free passage over their lands. However, they still have the right to close them down when the agreements that form those rights of way are in abeyance.

Our government has no title to ANY native lands that wasn't invented in the early 20th century. Before that the treaties are all we have. And in law, one side cannot make unilateral decisions to change the agreement. Sure we could tell the natives to shove it but ignoring treaties means the agreements resort back to the way things they were before they were made. In the end we would left with Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City as our only Canadian settlements. Your anger and petty fears are no replacement for proper and legal settlements with the natives.

I find your comments in regards to the law always dead on and I find your writing style takes complex legal concepts as to land rights and explains them in very comprehensive yet easy to understand terms and I learn a lot from your comments. I appreciate your explanations. They help me learn. There is a dignity in how you express your thoughts that I truly enjoy as well. The spirit in you in my opinion makes your words not just informative but healing for peole like me trying to reconcile law with many things.

[White Doors]

I find your comments in regards to the law always dead on and I find your writing style takes complex legal concepts as to land rights and explains them in very comprehensive yet easy to understand terms and I learn a lot from your comments. I appreciate your explanations. They help me learn. There is a dignity in how you express your thoughts that I truly enjoy as well. The spirit in you in my opinion makes your words not just informative but healing for peole like me trying to reconcile law with many things.

What ascerbic Whit!

[jbg]

What ascerbic Whit!

I wasn't sure, but then again I'm never sarcastic.

[Riverwind]

Estoppel IS being applied Geoffrey since the government promised to maintain a trust of land and money on behalf of Six Nations. It turns out they used the money and the land for their own interests. The occupation of the land prevents development which in turn prevents a further damage to that trust relationship. The government has lied about their trusteeship and that is sufficient cause to use estoppel as a legal reasoning for the reclamations and blockades.

What gets lost in this debate is the fact that any wrongs that occurred occurred over 150 years ago and any compensation to address these wrongs must come out of the pockets of people who were not responsible. Frankly, that is the greater injustice and that is why Six Nations will never get anything close to what it is demanding.

Our government has no title to ANY native lands that wasn't invented in the early 20th century. And in law, one side cannot make unilateral decisions to change the agreement.

The Canadian government _is_ the sovereign power. This fact has been repeated over and over again SCC judgements related to native claims. This means any native rights *are* subject to Canadian law which *can* be changed unilaterally by the democratic majority (this includes the provisions in the Canadian constitution). Right now the majority is bending over backward trying to accommodate native claims but there is a limit. Six Nations has two choices: they can settle for a politically possible compromise in the 100 million -1 billion range or they can go to court. If they go to court there are two possible outcomes:

1) They will lose outright and get nothing.

2) They will win a symbolic victory but will find that their ability to claim damages will be limited to something close to what the government offered anyways.

The SCC is politically astute and would never award a trillion dollar judgement because they would be smart enough to know that such a ruling would lead to a constitutional showdown and would ultimately undermine the integrity of the law rather than uphold it. That is why the SCC ruled that Bill 101 did not violate the charter of rights even though it obviously does.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

What gets lost in this debate is the fact that any wrongs that occurred occurred over 150 years ago and any compensation to address these wrongs must come out of the pockets of people who were not responsible. Frankly, that is the greater injustice and that is why Six Nations will never get anything close to what it is demanding.

It's not lost riverwind ... it's right where we all found it ... the privileges afforded to us by infrastructure and economy that is dependent on stolen land, stolen resources and stolen money.

[Denny]

It seems that we all pay taxes to sjupport land titles offices, and they also recdeive fees. Why don't the Indians have to follow the process too, they are just as subject to th recordds in gthe titles office as anybody else, but they seem to believe they have their own divine right to ignore due process.

I don't doubt there are areas in which the land was not conveyed properly years ago, but in Caldonia, the deeds were registered.

If we go too far back in history, we jsut get lost. Who is to say my great, great grandfather was not cheated out of some land in downtown Toronto years ago? In fact, I just found a note from him in the family bible showing how somebody grabbed his house and two acre lot in the beach district when he off in the Yukon in the 1890's, and claimed he traded it for a horse and cart. Hey, that makes me the rightful owner. Guess I'll have to bulldoze that bank and those stores off my land. Of course my anecdote is fictional, but the reality is we don't know just went down, do we? That is why we rely on land titles offices.

[geoffrey]

Denny, these claims aren't even based on notes in the family bible. These are verbal ramblings of old elder types. We all know how well old people remember details, these Indians must have a cure for alzhemiers or something hidden out there.

[Riverwind]

Denny, these claims aren't even based on notes in the family bible. These are verbal ramblings of old elder types. We all know how well old people remember details, these Indians must have a cure for alzhemiers or something hidden out there.

Even if these self-serving memories were correct we have no way to know what was omitted. When we look at Six Nations today we see a society with many internal divisions and people who routinely ignore the decisions made by their leaders to pursue their own objectives. In some cases, these 'rogues' engage in violence and other activities that are condemned by the leadership.

How can we know whether the memories of the these 'elders' are, in fact, the memories of the people who represented the majority of people as opposed to the rogues pushing their own agenda.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[jbg]

It's not lost riverwind ... it's right where we all found it ... the privileges afforded to us by infrastructure and economy that is dependent on stolen land, stolen resources and stolen money.

Doesn't anyone realize that this cr@p about "stolen land" is of a piece with the wholesale movements of flora, fauna and people since Gondwana (or Gondwanaland)(link) and the legendary continent of Atlantis (link) split up into their component parts. The same people who now decry white European population of the New World (many of them curiously white themselves, or beneficiary of "white" government programs" also oppose Israel for displacing "Palestinians".

World history has always been characterized by these movements and always will be. Sometimes, the native people are more successful at holding "invaders" at bay. Witness Africa and most of Asia. Sometimes, as in the Americas and Australia, smallpox and other diseases grease the demise of "native" civilizations. The fact is that the native Americans (or FN's) are down to 5% of their original population. Should that entitle them sto the entire Continent? Isn't that a bit wasteful?

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The spread of Islam in the century or so after Mohamed is a case in point. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was another. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical.

If Israelis have to go "back" to Europe, and Americans/Canadians also have to go "back" to Europe, do we then have to retrace our steps all the way back to the modern Tanzania? What about those indigenous people?

[jbg]

It's not lost riverwind ... it's right where we all found it ... the privileges afforded to us by infrastructure and economy that is dependent on stolen land, stolen resources and stolen money.

No answer to this (link)?

[jennie]

No answer to this (link)?

If Israelis have to go "back" to Europe, and Americans/Canadians also have to go "back" to Europe, do we then have to retrace our steps all the way back to the modern Tanzania? What about those indigenous people?

Who told you you had to go back jbg?

You musta p'd somebody off.

[AngusThermopyle]

Who told you you had to go back jbg?

You musta p'd somebody off.

I notice you are'nt answering the question, just using a question to divert the topic away from the actual question.

Just an observation, not an accusation.

[jbg]

I notice you are'nt answering the question, just using a question to divert the topic away from the actual question.

Just an observation, not an accusation.

I noticed the same thing. The people who assert "native rights" in 125% of BC, and over obviously settled areas of Ontario, are asserting the unrealistic position that centuries of development should be ignored. Similarly, the Palestinians are ignoring realities on the ground.

Notice, the "First Nations" dropped the ball on these "rights" until generous social welfare programs and development of the land made the "rights" lucrative to assert.

[jennie]

I noticed the same thing. The people who assert "native rights" in 125% of BC, and over obviously settled areas of Ontario, are asserting the unrealistic position that centuries of development should be ignored. Similarly, the Palestinians are ignoring realities on the ground.

Notice, the "First Nations" dropped the ball on these "rights" until generous social welfare programs and development of the land made the "rights" lucrative to assert.

Ask me a question that has something to do with something I have said and I will answer. You are demanding that I defend something I never said.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada and Palestinians just want to continue living in peace where they have been living for centuries.

It is only a problem because someone else wants their land.

Edited September 17, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

It is only a problem because someone else wants their land.

But the Palestinians stole it from the Jews. Doesn't that mean they should give it back? Edited September 17, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

But the Palestinians stole it from the Jews. Doesn't that mean they should give it back?

Is there not room for everyone?

And how does that apply to Canada? It doesn't.

[Riverwind]

Is there not room for everyone?

You are evading the point. The Jew were forcefully expelled from Israel by the Muslims. That means they have aboriginal title to all of the lands and have a right to enforce their sovereignty. Why don't you support the Jews with same vigor that you support Six Nations? Edited September 17, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

You are evading the point. The Jew were forcefully expelled from Israel by the Muslims. That means they have aboriginal title to all of the lands and have a right to enforce their sovereignty. Why don't you support the Jews with same vigor that you support Six Nations?

/drift

Because Six Nations is not trying to throw anyone off the land they are living on, but only to stop new development that impinges on their territory and threatens the environment.

They are willing to live together in peace.

If the Israelis treated the Palestinians with the same respect as Six Nations treats us, I would support them too, but they don't.

But the topic of this thread is aboriginal occupations and barricades in ONTARIO.

Can you name them all? There are six to my knowledge. Do you know what the issues are for each? Do you know who is in a position to resolve the issues ... but doesn't? Do you know why?

Edited September 17, 2007 by jennie

[uOttawaMan]

Who the hell cares, the OPP should have thrown the illegal protesters in jail long ago.

[AngusThermopyle]

Who the hell cares, the OPP should have thrown the illegal protesters in jail long ago.

I'd say that pretty well sums up my opinion concerning these protesters.

[ScottSA]

/drift

Because Six Nations is not trying to throw anyone off the land they are living on, but only to stop new development that impinges on their territory and threatens the environment.

What a crock. Burning piles of tires did more to harm the environment than 1000 years of peaceful habitation in that spot. This Indian/environmental stewardship myth is suuuch a joke.

[Posit]

Who the hell cares, the OPP should have thrown the illegal protesters in jail long ago.

Oops. Then that would make you WRONG, since neither the protesters or their actions are illegal. In fact it is the government who has been wrong all these years, and now they knowingly commit illegal acts by failing to consult and accommodate First Nations on the use of their land for our enterprises. And with an absolutely incorrect position on this matter I would suggest that you never represent yourself in any court case - including by-law court. Quite obviously, doing so you would have a fool for counsel and a fool for a client all at the same time.

I suspect too, that long before this is done, we will see First Nations get the lands back they had stolen, control of those lands exclusively and have our government provide hefty loss of use penalties to them, for our governments illegal and constitutionally prohibited actions of issuing permits on native lands.

[Posit]

What a crock. Burning piles of tires did more to harm the environment than 1000 years of peaceful habitation in that spot. This Indian/environmental stewardship myth is suuuch a joke.

The burning of tires at Caledonia put out less CO2 emissions and other pollutants than one day's movement of commuter vehicles from the 905 regions to the 416 region in the GTA puts out.

Get over it. Stop driving to work and save a tree.

[ScottSA]

The burning of tires at Caledonia put out less CO2 emissions and other pollutants than one day's movement of commuter vehicles from the 905 regions to the 416 region in the GTA puts out.

Get over it. Stop driving to work and save a tree.

Do tell how not driving to work will save a tree? In fact, you would have me deny a tree food, it seems. Little bit of mushy leftist thinking there I guess, eh?

[Posit]

During the Biosphere 1 and 2 experiments they discovered that trees have an upper limit of the amount of CO2 they could absorb. When the exceed that limit they begin to die. And with the yellow paste that hangs over the GTA most days, one less car would save a tree somewhere.