Occupations, barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issue

[AngusThermopyle]

Using armor piercing bombs does.

And the relevance of this statement is what exactly?

[Riverwind]

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 courts have also been clear that there are limits on what reasonable 'accommodation' is.

This is exactly why the feds pull the cases out of court and into a political area.

The courts have demanded that both sides negotiate and find a mutually acceptable compromise. There is no evidence that the courts are telling the government to give natives whatever they want.

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.

Again - the time to protest the deals was in the 1800s. Not now. The doctrine of latches would apply. Six Nations cannot know for certain that the courts would rule in its favour. More importantly, Canadians can chose to change the laws or the constitution at anytime and override any decision of the court. International censure won't mean much if Canadians decides that native demands have simply gotten too ridiculous.

Basically, Canadians today owe natives nothing - nada - zip. Most people feel bad about the fact that natives are economically worse off than the average and and numerous social problems and would like to help and are willing to entertain the idea of self-government if that will help address these problems. However, this desire to help is driven by a sense of charity and not a belief that natives are 'owed' something.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

Again - the time to protest the deals was in the 1800s. Not now.

Maybe you should have listened earlier instead of planning what you were going to say while reading my posts.

The government has a complete record of the complaints and grievances filed by Six Nations beginning in the late 1700's through to the present. The doctrine of latches does not apply because the complaints were filed from the very beginning and the consecutive governments just ignored them.

[M.Dancer]

. The entire area is radioactive.

Consider donating tinfoil

[jennie]

Consider donating tinfoil

Regardless of the amount of the settlement, considering the federal court precedent it is likely that they will win.

[AngusThermopyle]

Regardless of the amount of the settlement, considering the federal court precedent it is likely that they will win.

I have no doubt they will win. The current Political/Social climate being one of apeasement at all costs, whether right or wrong.

What I was wondering about was your statement that the entire area is Radioactive. As I stated the entire Earth emits radiation, some areas more so than others. As such stating that "the entire area is radioactive" is meaningless unless you can provide some form of reading. If you produce numbers showing levels to be three or four times the norm for the area then your statement is worthy of consideration. A simple blanket statement on the other hand really doesn't say anything and merely serves to drum up a knee jerk reaction amongst readers of the post.

I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, I just want you to know why I asked what I asked.

(Edited to add the letter "m" to the word "for" so it would read "form")

Edited September 19, 2007 by AngusThermopyle

[jennie]

I have no doubt they will win. The current Political/Social climate being one of apeasement at all costs, whether right or wrong.

What I was wondering about was your statement that the entire area is Radioactive. As I stated the entire Earth emits radiation, some areas more so than others. As such stating that "the entire area is radioactive" is meaningless unless you can provide some form of reading. If you produce numbers showing levels to be three or four times the norm for the area then your statement is worthy of consideration. A simple blanket statement on the other hand really doesn't say anything and merely serves to drum up a knee jerk reaction amongst readers of the post.

I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, I just want you to know why I asked what I asked.

(Edited to add the letter "m" to the word "for" so it would read "form")

Actually, the current climate seems to be shifting to the governments upholding the law. However, they don't do so voluntarily but have to be forced to by the courts.

Show me where any government actions are not lawful.

As for the radiation, no I have no data though no doubt there will be some prepared to present during the lawsuit. At this point it is a concern because of the old mine tailings and info about contaminated streams, and I believe the Algonquins have further data on it.

[jennie]

Maybe you should have listened earlier instead of planning what you were going to say while reading my posts.

The government has a complete record of the complaints and grievances filed by Six Nations beginning in the late 1700's through to the present. The doctrine of latches does not apply because the complaints were filed from the very beginning and the consecutive governments just ignored them.

And I would add that until the 1950's the government made it illegal for any aboriginal to use the courts for land claims.

There is absolutely no question that historically Canada has treated Aboriginal people almost as 'captives' and has stolen and used their land illegally. There is also no question that 'the jig is up' and Canada has to come clean and be fair, or be seen as a continuing aggressive, criminal oppressor of Indigenous Peoples for illegal gain.

[AngusThermopyle]

Canada has to come clean and be fair

I don't think any reasonable person would even attempt to deny this. The problem however lies in what the specific definition of "fair" is.

Do you think it is "fair" to essentially create a ruling class of elites based upon genetic heritage? Do you think it's "fair" to give one group a blanket veto power that can be held over the heads of the rest of the populace? Do you think it's "fair" that some in this country should be immune from the law?

If all that was sought was "fairness" then I really dont think anyone would have any objections at all. However when this one group starts to act in a ridiculous manner (such as claiming that 110%-125% of availlable land is theirs) that normal reasonable people start to object.

Dislike it as you may but the fact is that the Native population has contributed very little in actual self work and effort to build this Nation into what it presently is. No matter how you may loath Canada it is widely considered to be one of the better countries existing in the world today. This is not through any concerted effort by the Native population, in fact, quite the opposite.

Edited September 19, 2007 by AngusThermopyle

[kengs333]

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.

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. From what I've read of contemporary government reports they recognized that there were problems, problems that arose because the Indians were incapable of managing their own affairs. It was usually religious ministers who had to speak on behalf of the Indians, right? The fact of the matter is that the Indians were incapable of dealing with squatters and land speculators, and you can't blame the Government alone for this.

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.

The fact of the matter is, though, that he did it; the Government didn't like it, but there was little they could do about it once the deals were done. The Canadian of 2007 should not be expected to pay for something that something that Joseph Brant did in the 1790s. This is an internal Six Nations issue as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the Six Nations is trying to bilk Canada for this too just underscores how stupid this situation is, how this is more than about "fairness"--it's about undermining Canada as a whole.

[jefferiah]

Some may vote, some don't vote.

Some are traditional, some aren't.

There isn't one answer.

Hmmm but you haven't given any answer. Anyone who is not Canadian is not allowed to vote in a Canadian election. Some do, some don't is not an answer. Some Canadians vote and some don't. But if you insist that they are not Canadian then why should some be able to vote.

[jbg]

Maybe you should have listened earlier instead of planning what you were going to say while reading my posts.

The government has a complete record of the complaints and grievances filed by Six Nations beginning in the late 1700's through to the present. The doctrine of latches does not apply because the complaints were filed from the very beginning and the consecutive governments just ignored them.

How about "adverse possession"?

[Posit]

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. From what I've read of contemporary government reports they recognized that there were problems, problems that arose because the Indians were incapable of managing their own affairs. It was usually religious ministers who had to speak on behalf of the Indians, right? The fact of the matter is that the Indians were incapable of dealing with squatters and land speculators, and you can't blame the Government alone for this.

The fact of the matter is, though, that he did it; the Government didn't like it, but there was little they could do about it once the deals were done. The Canadian of 2007 should not be expected to pay for something that something that Joseph Brant did in the 1790s. This is an internal Six Nations issue as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the Six Nations is trying to bilk Canada for this too just underscores how stupid this situation is, how this is more than about "fairness"--it's about undermining Canada as a whole.

Six Nations had a responsible and democratic government system before the feds came in at gunpoint, removed the Chiefs and installed the band system under the Indian Act. The Confederacy system of democratic government and the Great Law (their Constitution) go back over 1000 years and has never been dissolved.

The Haldimand Proclamation set aside certain lands for Six Nations (and other tribes friendly to Six nations) for their exclusive use with guarantees that they would not be encroached upon by the expanding colonial settlers. This agreement was broken even before the Haldimand was put into effect, and Six Nations sent wave after wave of deputations to the British Governor of Canada. Joseph Brant even travelled toe England for an audience with the King who promised that the King's colonies would protect Six Nations on the Haldimand from encroachment. However, the business interests and settlers ignored the declaration and invaded the Haldimand without recourse. Still in 1924 when the Confederacy was deposed the Chiefs were still complaining. Sixn nations has made EVERY effort legally to get the attention of the government and have their lands returned to them. And today despite our modern information system and the support of an overwhelming majority of Canadians who support the settlement of land claims, the government refuses to return lands and make fair compensations for the loss of use of those lands and resources.

I will repeat again that Brant neither sold land or was complacent in the squatting on the Haldimand. He attempted to lease some lands with the expectation that doing so would head off the illegal land grabs and at the same time benefit Six Nations in the long term. It was the Indian Agent and the British that converted those leases without any authority or agreement of Six Nations and completely illegal under the Royal Proclamation.

If you have been paying attention you will have realized that Six Nations does not pursue the return of lands occupied by residents with illegal title. Instead they move on undeveloped lands (or lands that are in the process of development) in an effort to stop the further occupation of lands that potentially could be returned to them. In addition, they are insisting during negotiations that all land development in the Haldimand be stopped until such time as the lands claims are exhausted. As well part of the federal offer of $125 million included an attempt to pay off the illegal appropriation of the Six Nations' trust that was borrowed for Crown ventures but never repaid. The last estimate I heard from Six Nations accountants was that the present-day value of that missing trust account is $25 billion. The $125 mil is a long way away from $25 billion and it was seen as a slap in the face. This is further evidence that the government is playing games and not serious about finding common ground.

"Fairness" in this issue is not based on emotional immaturity or political correctness. It is based on what is truth and what is just under the law. As it stands Six Nation's claims are valid and the government continues to allow development on the lands that can be returned. There is nothing fair about having to chase down a government to comply with its own laws. We owe Six Nations justice and a fair audience to hear their claims.

[jennie]

Hmmm but you haven't given any answer. Anyone who is not Canadian is not allowed to vote in a Canadian election. Some do, some don't is not an answer. Some Canadians vote and some don't. But if you insist that they are not Canadian then why should some be able to vote.

Some may consider themselves Canadian and vote.

75% of those who identify themselves as having aboriginal heritage do not live on reserves.

Traditional people may not participate in Canada's system.

There isn't one answer for all Aboriginal people in Canada.

However, the Six Nations Confederacy people are traditional people and

may consider it against their own law to participate in Canada's system of governance.

[jefferiah]

Some may consider themselves Canadian and vote.

75% of those who identify themselves as having aboriginal heritage do not live on reserves.

Traditional people may not participate in Canada's system.

There isn't one answer for all Aboriginal people in Canada.

However, the Six Nations Confederacy people are traditional people and

may consider it against their own law to participate in Canada's system of governance.

Oh ok so some are Canadians and some aren't. I see. How convenient. How are we supposed to know which ones are and which ones are not Canadian citizens. And what about the ones who aren't...should they have the legal right to vote if they are not Canadian? So basically they get to pick and choose how Canadian they want to be and when it comes voting time non-Canadians can instantly become Canadians until they have cast their ballot.

I didn't know this was commonplace. I am going to start voting in other nations elections now.

Look Jennie, you are being completely ridiculous on this. You say well maybe they won't vote. So what. If they are not Canadian citizens should they even have the option. I can't vote in American elections. Lets say you were arguing for the right of Albanians to vote in American elections. Someone points out to you that it would be ridiculous to allow any non-Americans to vote. Would you then use the defense--- "Hmmm well some Albanians might not vote. It depends on the individual feelings of the Albanian. There is no one answer."

A defense you have used to multiple arguments is that they never wanted to join Canada. So you have to decide. Are you Canadian or not? And if not, why should you be allowed to vote in our elections? Or enjoy medicare, etc?

Edited September 20, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. From what I've read of contemporary government reports they recognized that there were problems, problems that arose because the Indians were incapable of managing their own affairs. It was usually religious ministers who had to speak on behalf of the Indians, right? The fact of the matter is that the Indians were incapable of dealing with squatters and land speculators, and you can't blame the Government alone for this.

The fact of the matter is, though, that he did it; the Government didn't like it, but there was little they could do about it once the deals were done. The Canadian of 2007 should not be expected to pay for something that something that Joseph Brant did in the 1790s. This is an internal Six Nations issue as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the Six Nations is trying to bilk Canada for this too just underscores how stupid this situation is, how this is more than about "fairness"--it's about undermining Canada as a whole.

Look kengs333 ... the churches and governments were in cahoots to steal their land.

It had nothing to do with capability and everything to do with fraud and deceit ... bilking them of their land and its resources.

It was illegal then and it is illegal now.

Canada is not being 'generous' by having a land claims system. It was legally required under International Law (Canada's UN obligations). Its purpose is to address the repatriation of Indigenous land illegally taken and to compensate for resources.

If Brant did not have Power of Attorney from the Confederacy Council for a deal he did, the deal is not valid.

These are the facts being established through negotiations now.

ALL Canadians of 2007 benefit EVERY DAY from the resources from traditional Indigenous land.

The economy of Canada depends almost entirely on natural resources.

You owe, I owe, we all owe them for our standard of living ... EVERY DAY.

[jefferiah]

Look kengs333 ... the churches and governments were in cahoots to steal their land.

It had nothing to do with capability and everything to do with fraud and deceit ... bilking them of their land and its resources.

It was illegal then and it is illegal now.

Canada is not being 'generous' by having a land claims system. It was legally required under International Law (Canada's UN obligations). Its purpose is to address the repatriation of Indigenous land illegally taken and to compensate for resources.

If Brant did not have Power of Attorney from the Confederacy Council for a deal he did, the deal is not valid.

These are the facts being established through negotiations now.

ALL Canadians of 2007 benefit EVERY DAY from the resources from traditional Indigenous land.

The economy of Canada depends almost entirely on natural resources.

You owe, I owe, we all owe them for our standard of living ... EVERY DAY.

So then you would support land claims and a tax free status for Jews in Palestine? Celts in Spain?

[jennie]

So then you would support land claims and a tax free status for Jews in Palestine? Celts in Spain?

Do you mean Palestinians?

Are Celts indigenous in Spain? How interesting!

Are they continuously resident there?

[jefferiah]

Do you mean Palestinians?

Are Celts indigenous in Spain? How interesting!

Are they continuously resident there?

Andalusia has a lot of bagpipers. Celts lived all through Europe. They did not always live there or in any one place but neither did the natives nor most people on the globe, as JBG points out. What makes natives indigenous. From what I understand they moved to America as well. They are no more native than I am. Not a single one of them. I was born here.

Before the expulsion of the Acadians, the peaceful neutral Acadians paid off some peaceful Micmac to kill men, women and children in the settlement at Dartmouth. Reparations for their descendants please?

Now back to the real question, Jennie. How can we determine and sort out which natives are Canadian and which ones aren't so that we won't have non-Canadians voting in our elections?

Edited September 20, 2007 by jefferiah

[AngusThermopyle]

It had nothing to do with capability

I don't know if this particular point is relevant to land claims, but it most certainly is in respect to the question of Sovereignty. I don't know how proficient the Six Nations are in the management and administrative aspects of providing a working internal infrastructure as a major component of a Sovereign Nation. I do know however that in the local in which I live we have the two largest reserves in North America.

The regular routine on these Reserves would be comical if it wasn't so ridiculous. The reserve goes bankrupt. An outside Manager is brought in, he straightens out the mess. The natives fire him once things are running smoothly again, awarding his job to one of their own. A year later they are bankrupt again, they bring in an outside manager, and so on and so on.

It's roughly a two year cycle. It's starting to bite them in the ass now though. People don't want to work for them because they know they'll be fired once they've cleaned up the mess. In fact one of them just fired their "Whitey" manager a few months ago, that gives them roughly 12 months (I'm being generous) before they have to look for someone to straighten out the mess again.

If this situation is indicative of the norm for Native management techniques then capability in this respect becomes very important in relation to the idea of Sovereignty.

[jennie]

I don't know if this particular point is relevant to land claims, but it most certainly is in respect to the question of Sovereignty. I don't know how proficient the Six Nations are in the management and administrative aspects of providing a working internal infrastructure as a major component of a Sovereign Nation. I do know however that in the local in which I live we have the two largest reserves in North America.

The regular routine on these Reserves would be comical if it wasn't so ridiculous. The reserve goes bankrupt. An outside Manager is brought in, he straightens out the mess. The natives fire him once things are running smoothly again, awarding his job to one of their own. A year later they are bankrupt again, they bring in an outside manager, and so on and so on.

It's roughly a two year cycle. It's starting to bite them in the ass now though. People don't want to work for them because they know they'll be fired once they've cleaned up the mess. In fact one of them just fired their "Whitey" manager a few months ago, that gives them roughly 12 months (I'm being generous) before they have to look for someone to straighten out the mess again.

If this situation is indicative of the norm for Native management techniques then capability in this respect becomes very important in relation to the idea of Sovereignty.

Six Nations are very good managers. Always have been, I believe.

Where is that may I ask?

[jennie]

Andalusia has a lot of bagpipers. Celts lived all through Europe. They did not always live there or in any one place but neither did the natives nor most people on the globe, as JBG points out. What makes natives indigenous. From what I understand they moved to America as well. They are no more native than I am. Not a single one of them. I was born here.

Before the expulsion of the Acadians, the peaceful neutral Acadians paid off some peaceful Micmac to kill men, women and children in the settlement at Dartmouth. Reparations for their descendants please?

Now back to the real question, Jennie. How can we determine and sort out which natives are Canadian and which ones aren't so that we won't have non-Canadians voting in our elections?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples

I don't know how Canada deals with that. I think they all have a vote, just some choose not. Not sure.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples

I don't know how Canada deals with that. Perhaps it is just a matter of choice. Not sure.

But if it were to be dealt with you would fully support it?

[jennie]

But if it were to be dealt with you would fully support it?

I am not sure what you mean.

You mean if Canada recognizes their sovereignty?

[jefferiah]

I am not sure what you mean.

You mean if Canada recognizes their sovereignty?

No lets say we were to ask which of you are Canadian and make them decide, so that we can ensure we don't have non-citizens participating in our elections. And then we can move on to denying them medicare. And they can be healed with tobacco smoke. Canadian medicare for Canadians. Medicine men for the rest.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jefferiah