Occupations, barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issue

[jbg]

You have to spell out the alternative. A person has a right to a nationality.

Yes. Canadian.

[jbg]

As coincidence will have it, my neighbour is making that case against our property. Unfortunately her oral history is faulty and we have a survey accompanied by an affidavid.............10 years of occupation would be all she needed....she can only prove 7.

My point obviously is that even if there is any merit in these delusional claims they should be considered long since gone by virtue of the running of the statute of limitations, i.e. adverse possession.

[kengs333]

Let me be clearer: Some traditional Indigenous Peoples do not choose to be Canadian and they cannot be forced.

So what does that make them, then? Foreigners?

[Posit]

Yes. Canadian.

Wrong. Those who hold dual citizenship get to vote and still go back to their home countries....under OUR "Rule of Law".

However, Six Nations under the Great Law cannot hold dual citizenship in any other nation and so they refuse to vote in Canadian elections as a sign of their patriotism to their nations. Still even though Canada "allows" someone to vote doesn't define them as Canadian, and the fact the majority of Six Nations do not vote is sufficient evidence that they believe they are not Canadian. And lastly there is no (and was never any) conscription of native people into the Canadian system - legally or otherwise. Simply having an act to watch over them does not legally assimilate them either. Rather we also have a ministry and numerous acts dealing with foreign affairs, and yet no one is silly enough to believe that those foreigners whom the acts are prescribed for, are Canadian in any shape or form.

[jbg]

Native peoples define it as a spiritual connection and yet we non natives are obsessed in turning that into a genetic defintiion.

There has to be some ascertainable standard if the law gives certain privileges based upon status, to avoid fraud. I could "dance with wolves" all I want and I'm a Jew, not a First Nations.

Its no different then when someone asks me what makes you a Jew and I say, depends who you ask, some feel its because my mother is Jewish and jews define their Jewishness by whether their mother was a Jew or not. But so what/ what the people who convert or whose mothers were not Jewish but there father was? What about me? I go to Israel and I am not considered Jewish by the Rabbincial courts because some old smelly guy with a beard and a bad hair cut and a penchant for wearing black clothes tells me I need to do certain rituals to be able to call myself one. Uh yah. This guy is going to tell me I am not Jewish? To me being Jewish is not a religious definition, its partially cultural, partially spiritual, partially biological and partially socio-political. To me what really makes me Jewish is my collective link to the identity and values all Jews share. Yah good luck defining that in a law.

Again, the "who is a Jew" argument is important primarily in the context of governmentally conferred benefits under the "Law of Return". It's an Israeli issue. I will admit that I have a close friend in North Carolina whose wife converted to Judaism under Orthodox tutelage rather than Reform, so as to avoid these issues.

How about instead of imposing laws on aboriginals to tell them how to define themselves we let them just once explain to us what it means and then codify that as a guideline but not an absolute limitation.

What about fraud?

And lest you think everyone is scrambling to be native because tis so great- I will give you a hint- that aint happening. Collective Rights can and do fade away when the people they are attached to fade away-that can happen naturally or by enforced genocide or environmental catastrophe. Ideally we hope it only happens with the first category and peacefuly and gracefully in due time and as it fades, so to does a new set of collective rights come about to attach to a new natural order of things.

Not bloody likely, given the attachment of the band leaders to political power.

[Posit]

So what does that make them, then? Foreigners?

No. Crown allies. Which brings us to the next point of that equation. Canada, complete with its letters patent, is nothing more than a Crown Corporation, with the major stockholder, the Queen. And since the Crown had agreements directly with the Crown, that would put Canada as having no business, control or authority over Six Nations. Of course the is according to the "Rule of Law", which I expect now the termites will come out of the woodwork to dispute, ravage and deny. It just that no one here actually believes in the "Rule of Law" and instead subscribe to the "Rule of making it up as we go along and faking it". I do say that their wives have made a better job of faking than they are......

[jbg]

However, Six Nations under the Great Law cannot hold dual citizenship in any other nation and so they refuse to vote in Canadian elections as a sign of their patriotism to their nations.

The "Great Law"? Does that have a "C-___" or "S-___" designation I can look up?

[Posit]

The "Great Law"? Does that have a "C-___" or "S-___" designation I can look up?

No. You'll have to look in the "H-______" designations. Canada holds no jurisdiction over the Haundenosaunee. Look it up. The Queen and the Governor General have all the paperwork.

[jennie]

There has to be some ascertainable standard if the law gives certain privileges based upon status, to avoid fraud. I could "dance with wolves" all I want and I'm a Jew, not a First Nations.

Again, the "who is a Jew" argument is important primarily in the context of governmentally conferred benefits under the "Law of Return". It's an Israeli issue. I will admit that I have a close friend in North Carolina whose wife converted to Judaism under Orthodox tutelage rather than Reform, so as to avoid these issues.

What about fraud?

Not bloody likely, given the attachment of the band leaders to political power.

I believe definition of membership is in the hands of the Band leadership now, though it was formerly completely government controlled. In fact there may be a difference between who has government 'status' and who is a band member.

[kengs333]

THREE suspects sought in beating of Sam Gaultieri:

Byron Powless, age 18

Richard Smoke, age 18

and an unnamed 15 year-old.

also, names of the NINE people arrested yesterday have been released...

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/258842

[jennie]

THREE suspects sought in beating of Sam Gaultieri:

Byron Powless, age 18

Richard Smoke, age 18

and an unnamed 15 year-old.

also, names of the NINE people arrested yesterday have been released...

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/258842

I posted this in the Caledonia thread too.

[jennie]

Seems to be right in line with the usual action plan employed in such cases. why work the resources when you can sue for a billion?

It is not just the Algonquins who don't want uranium mining in North Frontenac ...

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/c...f2c6f1b&p=1

According to the Ontario Mining Act, passed in 1868 and changed little since, if you're at least 18 years old and have $25.50, you can purchase a prospector's licence and stake a mining claim on private property, as long as the property's owner doesn't possess its mineral rights. Claims cannot, however, be staked on certain areas, such as gardens, orchards, "pleasure grounds," or on land containing homes or churches. Prospectors don't have to notify landowners before or after staking claims.

If a mining company is interested in a claim, it can lease the mineral rights from a prospector and begin exploratory work, which could entail clearing trees (which the company doesn't have to replace) to make roads, digging trenches (which the company doesn't have to fill if it removes less than 10,000 cubic metres of soil), or drilling holes (from which the company can remove 1,000 tonnes of rock). Mining companies can begin exploration within 24 hours of notifying landowners.

...

But these changes, if they do occur, will offer little peace of mind to Mr. Morrison. At any time, miners can drag a five-tonne drill onto his land and there is little he can do to stop them.

"It's a kick in the guts," he says. "I can sit here for 10, 15, 20 years, on pins and needles, waiting for the other uranium shoe to drop."

Edited September 21, 2007 by jennie

[geoffrey]

You need permission to access the land. I work for a company that deals with land access all the time. You can't simply just barge in and start digging. You may have the rights to get the minerals, but you don't have the right to touch the surface of the land.

In Alberta, if a landowner is too much trouble, they'll pay their neighbour for access to their land and drill diagonally.

Surface rights pay a nice sum in most places in Canada, plus you'll get extra cash for excessive noise, smell, traffic, and other disturbances.

[jennie]

You need permission to access the land. I work for a company that deals with land access all the time. You can't simply just barge in and start digging. You may have the rights to get the minerals, but you don't have the right to touch the surface of the land.

In Alberta, if a landowner is too much trouble, they'll pay their neighbour for access to their land and drill diagonally.

Surface rights pay a nice sum in most places in Canada, plus you'll get extra cash for excessive noise, smell, traffic, and other disturbances.

In the Ontario Mining Act, you do not need permission apparently. These people found trees downed and mining stakes and they had no notice, nor were they entitled to any apparently.

[geoffrey]

In the Ontario Mining Act, you do not need permission apparently. These people found trees downed and mining stakes and they had no notice, nor were they entitled to any apparently.

They need permission. They'd have a pretty valid complaint if that were the case. At the very least, they need to be getting a cheque.

Ontario Mining Act, Section 79:

2)Where there is an owner of surface rights of land or where land is occupied by a person who has made improvements thereon that, in the opinion of the Minister, entitles that person to compensation, a person who,

( a ) prospects, stakes out or causes to be staked out a mining claim or an area of land for a boring permit;

( b ) formerly held a mining claim or an area of land for a boring permit that has been cancelled, abandoned or forfeited;

( c ) is the holder of a mining claim or an area of land for a boring permit and who performs assessment work; or

( d ) is the lessee or owner of mining lands and who carries on mining operations,

on such land, shall compensate the owner of the surface rights or the occupant of the lands, as the case may be, for damages sustained to the surface rights by such prospecting, staking out, assessment work or operations.

Edited September 21, 2007 by geoffrey

[jennie]

They need permission. They'd have a pretty valid complaint if that were the case. At the very least, they need to be getting a cheque.

Ontario Mining Act, Section 79:

Yes they can sue for damages, but they can't stop them and they did not get notice.

Currently, if a private property owner doesn't own the surface rights and mining rights to their property, they could be surprised to find a prospector staking a claim in their backyard. Prospectors can claim mineral rights beneath a private property after giving the owner 24 hours notice.

I am not sure how this is interpreted: Prospectors look for claims, stake them and then have to give the landowner notice that they are making a claim?

That seems to be the way it was described. They didn't have to notify them for prospecting, only for drilling.

Ontario's Mining Act now under review...

http://www.parrysound.com/press/1189612680/

Edited September 21, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

No. You'll have to look in the "H-______" designations. Canada holds no jurisdiction over the Haundenosaunee. Look it up. The Queen and the Governor General have all the paperwork.

Yet we arrest them when ever they break our law.

[M.Dancer]

So what does that make them, then? Foreigners?

Where can we deport them? Will they be welcome in Nunavut? Probably not. Smuggling, and gun running aren't part of their traditional culture up there.

[M.Dancer]

Let me be clearer: Some traditional Indigenous Peoples do not choose to be Canadian and they cannot be forced.

Yeah what ever. But they have no choice other than to obey our laws.

[AngusThermopyle]

Let me be clearer: Some traditional Indigenous Peoples do not choose to be Canadian and they cannot be forced.

Then they should not have the privilege of voting, simple as that, eh.

[M.Dancer]

Then they should not have the privilege of voting, simple as that, eh.

And if they use a fridge instead of smoke, gunpowder instead of flint, they appelation of traditional is as phoney as their claims.

[jennie]

Yeah what ever. But they have no choice other than to obey our laws.

If our governments would obey our laws, we wouldn't be having these blockades all over the province.

[jennie]

Then they should not have the privilege of voting, simple as that, eh.

No problem. Traditional people do not vote.

[jennie]

And if they use a fridge instead of smoke, gunpowder instead of flint, they appelation of traditional is as phoney as their claims.

Traditional rights are interpreted by the courts for a modern context. No culture is static.

For example, some treaties specified that a 'medicine box' was provided. At that time, that was the extent of 'public health' - a medicine box for every community, native and non-native. Since health services were the same then, the courts have interpreted that as entitlement to the same free health care today as for all Canadians.

I see some lack of comprehension here of what is currently happening. The Traditional Councils like the Haudenosaunee Confederacy are again asserting their right to govern. They are different than Band Chiefs, have different priorities. The traditional people were always there, but are not as well known or understood.

The venerable Iroquois Confederacy lives. They were always our allies, and they keep their agreements about that.

We haven't, and now we do have to answer for that.

[M.Dancer]

No culture is static.

Their's used to be. Otherwise cultural icons like the wheel, livestock and steel might have appeared.