Occupations, barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issue

[kengs333]

No, you are not correct. Joseph Brant attempted to get the squatters to sign leases - succeeding at a few - but the colonial government converted them to sales without authority. In a number of other cases the Indian Agent took the money from the valid leases and embezzled it putting it into high cost expenses and investments like the failed Grand River Navigation company.

Nope, he sold the land, and this land was subsequently settled by pioneers. End of story.

Six Nations identity is not linked to any racial heritage. There were lots of Dutch, English and French who were adopted at one time into the Confederate nations whose descendants are considered Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, or Tuscarora. There were also lots of Mississauga, Algonquin Abernaki and other nations adopted into the nations and they too enjoy the full protection of the Confederacy and the Great Law. The Confederacy is a political entity and the Great Law is a Constitution of all the people who belong to it.

Well, there's another whitewashing for you; sure, I suppose that some outsiders were "adopted (ie. taken prisoner, forced to intermarry) but by and large a member of the Six Nations descend from a certain racial stock, and the integrity of this racial heritage has always been something of an issue, hasn't it?

[geoffrey]

Blowing up bombs doesn't create radiation. There has never been a nuclear test in Canada.

The mining firm has a good case and I hope they win every penny. Eventually Indians will have to be held accountable for their actions. A strong willed judge will do the trick.

Chances are though, he'll cave and create some kind of Indian right to destroy others' livelyhoods.

[jennie]

Blowing up bombs doesn't create radiation. There has never been a nuclear test in Canada.

The mining firm has a good case and I hope they win every penny. Eventually Indians will have to be held accountable for their actions. A strong willed judge will do the trick.

Chances are though, he'll cave and create some kind of Indian right to destroy others' livelyhoods.

There is a precedent just set ... the federal government got sued for failure to consult.

The feds lost.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/...wt-cameron.html

Ka'agee Tu First Nation wins federal court fight

Last Updated: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 | 2:58 PM CT

CBC News

The Ka'agee Tu First Nation in the Northwest Territories says the federal government and industry should take more steps to co-operate with First Nations, after a Federal Court sided with them in a dispute with Ottawa.

In a ruling Friday, the court said the government violated the Ka'agee Tu's right to meaningful consultation when in 2005 it approved Paramount Resources' application to drill several new oil wells in the Cameron Hills area.

The Ka'agee Tu, also known as the Kakisa First Nation, had raised concerns about the proposed expansion in the Cameron Hills, its traditional hunting grounds and source of drinking water.

"The court has clearly ruled that Canada can't make unilateral decisions about major industrial projects on aboriginal lands without, in any way, addressing or dealing with the affected aboriginal communities," Tim Howard, a lawyer representing the First Nation, told CBC News on Monday.

"It seems that Canada needs to keep learning that lesson, and we hope that they'll finally take it to heart this time."

It was a second significant court victory for the Ka'agee Tu in its battle against the Cameron Hills development.

Edited September 19, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Nope, he sold the land, and this land was subsequently settled by pioneers. End of story.

You don't know that because nobody knows the facts until the negotiations for each piece of land are completed.

[Posit]

You don't know that because nobody knows the facts until the negotiations for each piece of land are completed.

Legally Joseph Brant could not have sold the land. Even if there were a title around somewhere with his signature on it, it would have not legal any authority because one, the Royal Proclamation demanded that Natives could only sell their land to the Crown, and two the British recognized and affirmed that Six Nations required a consensus of the community before any land could be sold, leased or otherwise ceded. So, no matter what Joseph Brant involved himself in, he neither had authority under the law, or authority as an agent for the Confederacy. It is just that simple.

Well, there's another whitewashing for you; sure, I suppose that some outsiders were "adopted (ie. taken prisoner, forced to intermarry) but by and large a member of the Six Nations descend from a certain racial stock, and the integrity of this racial heritage has always been something of an issue, hasn't it?

EVERY member of the Haudenosaunee society are equal, free and able to enjoy full rights. There were no forced marriages (primarily because the weddings were the device of the women and the Clan Mothers, and divorce was as easy as telling the man to leave the long house) and prisoners were held only as long as they were useful to the community - that includes no longer being a threat (Kind of like being a prisoner but under more gentle and compassionate conditions). If they refused to participate in the community they were let go and if they did participate they were adopted into the nation.

I'm really disheartened kengs333, that I can't have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject. I realize that in comparison you and your riverwind friends are starting at a deficit, but I had hoped you would at least research the trail I set out before you. Seems that arguing myths is your specialty but alas they are still ephemeral nonsense no matter how you try to spin them.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Posit

[Posit]

Blowing up bombs doesn't create radiation. There has never been a nuclear test in Canada.

Using armor piercing bombs does.

The mining firm has a good case and I hope they win every penny. Eventually Indians will have to be held accountable for their actions. A strong willed judge will do the trick.

First of all Judges are supposed to be unbiased. After all justice is blind. And Court is not a political process involving the "will" of anyone. It is a court of law, where the first premise is to uphold the Constitution,including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then uphold the law that is consistent with both. The law says both are wrong in asserting their claims against the natives. However, we all know that launching a lawsuit with a hefty claim is a simple legal maneuver to scare the opponents. However, in my experience Native people with Truth on their side aren't scared of petty acts by inexperienced lawyers.

But Frontenac is suing the wrong agency and they are in a tenuous position. If they were smart they would join a class action against the Provincial government since it was they who issued the permits without consulting the natives. I highly doubt their claim will make it past the first hearing. However, since failing to consult IS a tort as set out in the above case, it is obvious that both Frontenac and the Province bear responsibility for the damages they each caused as a result of their actions. And since your opinion is unsupported by precedent it is obvious that you are still wrong. Geez, it must just feel awful for your being wrong so many times in one day.....

Edited September 19, 2007 by Posit

[jbg]

I think it may be getting that way in the Haldimand Tract, where developers have searched title and found no documents of transfer from Six Nations to the Crown. They readily admit their titles are not clear.

I doubt a title search of my house would show a transfer from the Lene Lenape (sp) to the British Crown, and thence to whoever purchased or lent against it, going all the way to me.

[jennie]

I doubt a title search of my house would show a transfer from the Lene Lenape (sp) to the British Crown, and thence to whoever purchased or lent against it, going all the way to me.

It definitely should.

[jbg]

You're avoiding the fact that much of the Haldimand Tract was sold off well before the 1840s by Joseph Brant, am I not correct? If the land was sold, then that's the way it is.

People taking extreme or difficult to justify positions often ignore the facts.

I'm not sure why you have to drag out the "racism" word; I'm for a united Canada, a Canada in which there are people of many races who are citizen; balkanizing it is the last thing I want to see happen. That makes me a racist? A tad hypocritical, isn't it, considering that the whole basis for Six Nations identity is acommon racial heritage?

The resort to calling people "racist" is a corollary to "Godwin's law". When someone is losing a debate on the merits, drag out racism, homophobia (link) or Hitler.

[jennie]

I'm not sure why you have to drag out the "racism" word; I'm for a united Canada, a Canada in which there are people of many races who are citizen; balkanizing it is the last thing I want to see happen.

All people have a right to determine for themselves what country they wish to belong to.

The people who were here before us have a right to join us or not, as they choose.

This is the law.

[noahbody]

Legally Joseph Brant could not have sold the land. Even if there were a title around somewhere with his signature on it, it would have not legal any authority because one, the Royal Proclamation demanded that Natives could only sell their land to the Crown, and two the British recognized and affirmed that Six Nations required a consensus of the community before any land could be sold, leased or otherwise ceded.

Was a consensus was required or was it a public meeting? Please provide link.

[jefferiah]

I'm not sure why you have to drag out the "racism" word; I'm for a united Canada, a Canada in which there are people of many races who are citizen; balkanizing it is the last thing I want to see happen.

All people have a right to determine for themselves what country they wish to belong to.

The people who were here before us have a right to join us or not, as they choose.

This is the law.

Now you put yourself back in the position of having to answer the voting question....if they are not Canadians then why should they be able to vote? Either you are a Canadian or you aren't. I don't think Americans, Russians, Spaniards and a multitude of other non-Canadians are usually allowed to vote in our elections.

[jennie]

Now you put yourself back in the position of having to answer the voting question....if they are not Canadians then why should they be able to vote? Either you are a Canadian or you aren't. I don't think Americans, Russians, Spaniards and a multitude of other non-Canadians are usually allowed to vote in our elections.

Some may vote, some don't vote.

Some are traditional, some aren't.

There isn't one answer.

[kengs333]

You don't know that because nobody knows the facts until the negotiations for each piece of land are completed.

Actually, no, the sales of land that he made can be substantiated, there's really no disputing this fact. Maybe there are issues with certain parcels of land around the Six Nations Reserve, but what he did is final. The government certainly didn't like it, and in later years, from what I understand, they did take measures to stop such sales from happening again, but there's no going back on what he did.

[jennie]

Actually, no, the sales of land that he made can be substantiated, there's really no disputing this fact. Maybe there are issues with certain parcels of land around the Six Nations Reserve, but what he did is final. The government certainly didn't like it, and in later years, from what I understand, they did take measures to stop such sales from happening again, but there's no going back on what he did.

Sorry. You don't 'know' any of that until the facts are established. Yes, it can in some cases be 'undone' if, for example, Joseph Brant was given the authority for some transactions but not others. What matters in law, then and now, is what transactions the Confederacy authorized.

These are the kinds of things being established in negotiations now.

[kengs333]

Legally Joseph Brant could not have sold the land. Even if there were a title around somewhere with his signature on it, it would have not legal any authority because one, the Royal Proclamation demanded that Natives could only sell their land to the Crown, and two the British recognized and affirmed that Six Nations required a consensus of the community before any land could be sold, leased or otherwise ceded. So, no matter what Joseph Brant involved himself in, he neither had authority under the law, or authority as an agent for the Confederacy. It is just that simple.

Guess what? He did. And regardless of whether or not he had the authority to do it, the blame rests on him in part for the current situation. That is all, of course, conveniently forgotten by the reclamation crowd--if they ever knew this in the first place--who simply want to run wild like a lawless bunch of thugs.

EVERY member of the Haudenosaunee society are equal, free and able to enjoy full rights. There were no forced marriages (primarily because the weddings were the device of the women and the Clan Mothers, and divorce was as easy as telling the man to leave the long house) and prisoners were held only as long as they were useful to the community - that includes no longer being a threat (Kind of like being a prisoner but under more gentle and compassionate conditions). If they refused to participate in the community they were let go and if they did participate they were adopted into the nation.

Please spare me the overly idealized statement about Indian egalitarianism. No society exists without some kind of social hierarchy. Prisoners--well, male prisoners, at least--were also subject to torture and put to death on occasion, depending on who they were and what the circumstances of their capture was, I suppose. Any way you look at it, capturing people and "allowing" them to join the captor's society is a pretty blatant violation of their human rights. Certainly you wouldn't approve of such things happening nowadays, would you? I won't even get into the whole divorce thing...

I'm really disheartened kengs333, that I can't have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject. I realize that in comparison you and your riverwind friends are starting at a deficit, but I had hoped you would at least research the trail I set out before you. Seems that arguing myths is your specialty but alas they are still ephemeral nonsense no matter how you try to spin them.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm always happy to discuss issues in a factual manner, but your queer understanding of Iroquois history really makes that next to impossible.

[Riverwind]

Sorry. You don't 'know' any of that until the facts are established. Yes, it can in some cases be 'undone' if, for example, Joseph Brant was given the authority for some transactions but not others. What matters in law, then and now, is what transactions the Confederacy authorized.

Actually no. There is a principal in law called the doctrine of latches which means people who feel their rights have been violated must take action within a reasonable period of time. The definition of 'reasonable time' depends on the circumstances but 150 years would definately be too long. If the Six Nations chiefs had a problem with Brant's sales they should have reclaimed the land in the 1800s. They did not which means the sales cannot be reversed today no matter what evidence comes to light. Edited September 19, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

Actually no. There is a principal in law called the doctrine of latches which means people who feel their rights have been violated must take action within a reasonable period of time. The definition of 'reasonable time' depends on the circumstances but 150 years would definately be too long. If the Six Nations chiefs had a problem with Brant's sales they should have reclaimed the land in the 1800s. They did not which means the sales cannot be reversed today no matter what evidence comes to light.

I see ... so that would explain why the feds are negotiating? Why the feds already made an offer?

[kengs333]

Sorry. You don't 'know' any of that until the facts are established. Yes, it can in some cases be 'undone' if, for example, Joseph Brant was given the authority for some transactions but not others. What matters in law, then and now, is what transactions the Confederacy authorized.

These are the kinds of things being established in negotiations now.

The fact that he made land sales has been established; it's been a historical reality since the time he conducted the transactions. Whether or not you agree with them, doesn't mean that he didn't make the sales.

[Riverwind]

I see ... so that would explain why the feds are negotiating? Why the feds already made an offer?

I seriously doubt that the feds are making offers for anything more than the plank road area where Six Nations does appear to have a legimate claim.

[jennie]

I seriously doubt that the feds are making offers for anything more than the plank road area where Six Nations does appear to have a legimate claim.

Yes, I think so too.

It was another 4 claims that the offer was made for, though:

The offer from Ottawa involved the former Moulton township in Dunnville, the flooding of lands in Dunnville to accommodate the Welland Canal, the former Burtch correctional facility in Brant County and the Grand River Navigation Co. claims.

http://www.sachem.ca/sachem/article_jun-08-07_d.html

Edited September 19, 2007 by jennie

[kengs333]

I see ... so that would explain why the feds are negotiating? Why the feds already made an offer?

They're doing it because they're caving in to terrorism, not because they feel like there's any legal validity to what the Six Nations want. They're trying to further violence and terrorism, because that's what the Six Nations has proven that it will resort to. Of course in the end, the government is only setting itself up for further "land claim" issues once other disgruntled Indian "nations" see how easy it is to extort money from the government. Thus Canada slowly gets sucked dry and implodes, which it looks to me is the real end goal in all of this.

In any other country a situation like Caledonia would have seen the military roll in, and my guess the longer this situation drags on the more open most Canadians, be they European, Asian or African, will be to such a recourse. Nobody came to Canada to live in a country where mob rule is allowed.

[jennie]

They're doing it because they're caving in to terrorism, not because they feel like there's any legal validity to what the Six Nations want. They're trying to further violence and terrorism, because that's what the Six Nations has proven that it will resort to. Of course in the end, the government is only setting itself up for further "land claim" issues once other disgruntled Indian "nations" see how easy it is to extort money from the government. Thus Canada slowly gets sucked dry and implodes, which it looks to me is the real end goal in all of this.

In any other country a situation like Caledonia would have seen the military roll in, and my guess the longer this situation drags on the more open most Canadians, be they European, Asian or African, will be to such a recourse. Nobody came to Canada to live in a country where mob rule is allowed.

You are dreaming in technicolour. Not going to happen.

Their claims require legitimate attention. The government knows that.

[AngusThermopyle]

I see ... so that would explain why the feds are negotiating? Why the feds already made an offer?

Irrelevant point. The "Feds" are merely politicians, they will do what they consider to be expedient and in their best interests. Rather than enforce the documentation to the letter and risk further confrontation they will give concessions. Further to that, they believe the Canadian public to be docile and non-offensive in nature, as such they will risk offending the Canadian Public before they will risk further, even rampant lawlessness from Natives.

So as you can see, looking at it realistically, whether the "Feds" negotiate or not can not be taken as iron clad proof as to the veracity of Native claims.

[Posit]

Actually no. There is a principal in law called the doctrine of latches which means people who feel their rights have been violated must take action within a reasonable period of time. The definition of 'reasonable time' depends on the circumstances but 150 years would definately be too long. If the Six Nations chiefs had a problem with Brant's sales they should have reclaimed the land in the 1800s. They did not which means the sales cannot be reversed today no matter what evidence comes to light.

The courts under their interpretation disagree with you and do not believe that applying the law of 250 years ago, identifying the injustice and reconciling the land rights with present-day applications of fairness, is unreasonable at all. In fact the courts have gone to great lengths to prescribe that the government must stop forging ahead without consultation and that they MUST accommodate native peoples when allowing development on their lands. The doctrine of latches doesn't apply, since the evidence shows that First Nation peoples made numerous attempts to have their grievances recognized but that the British and then their successors - our government - refused to hear them. And basically the courts are saying that legally we can't ignore them any longer.

On the second part of this, the courts have also be increasingly adamant about awarding penalties for loss of use, in addition to the current fair-market value of lands and resources. This is exactly why the feds pull the cases out of court and into a political area. We cannot afford the huge settlements that First Nations are owed, nor can we afford the continued grievances aired before the international community that tarnish Canada as a free and equal society.

Brant had no authority to sell anything belonging to the Confederacy, and while you can claim that a mistake can't be undone, the courts say it can when the government was culpable and knew Brant had no authority in the first place. And by that nature when a fraud such as this is perpetrated, the legal remedy is to undo the deal and restore the losses in the most just way possible. That is the purpose of negotiations, to identify and settle the illegal land transfers in the most agreeable way possible.

Certainly those iron clad deals and titles you think are so air-tight are full of holes when the government admits to the claim and offers a settlement as an offer to quit them.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Posit