Occupations, barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issue

[Posit]

Any appeals to doing the morally right thing in this matter hold no water considering the thug behaviour of Canadian people for the last two hundred years.

I corrected your sentence for you kengs333.

[Posit]

The introduction of Canadian law into these discussions has no relevance in deciding what the Natives were bound to do. However, it provides insight into what we as Canadians are OBLIGATED to do under the law and presents a basis for the Crown's intentions in honouring treaties and agreements at the time they were written. A case in point is the Royal Proclamation 1763 being affirmed and protected under the Constitution. This inclusion demonstrates that it was the intention of the Crown at the time it was written to set aside "Indian lands" that were off-limits to colonial expansion and that any such expansions could not occur through greedy land barons and unscrupulous dealings with settlers as it had in the US expansions. Rather the Crown was clear in providing that lands could only be ceded to the Crown itself IF the Indians wished to part with it.

Applying the "Rule of Law" according to our modern Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that all land dealings with individuals within the Haldimand Tract were illegal and prohibited. So I supposed, that if there is not a Crown title showing up in any of the land transfers, the ownership of the land remains in Six Nations' names and jurisdiction.

[M.Dancer]

The introduction of Canadian law into these discussions has no relevance in deciding what the Natives were bound to do.

So does that mean we can tie them to a stake, cut their nipples off and burn them as per native tradition, when they cross our terrirtory?

Or should civilised Canadain law take precident?

[AngusThermopyle]

You see, if our governments WERE following our own laws, NONE of these blockades or confrontations would have had to happen. If you don't yet understand what I mean then you have nothing to add to this thread.

Our Government is following the law. they are negotiating in good faith with the Natives and moving to settle the whole land claims issue. As you yourself have stated numerous times, they have already settled four of the Haldimand Tract claims. So how is this indicative of the Government wanting to screw the Natives?

Last night I was at a friends house, a Native guy we know dropped by for a beer. Of course our conversation turned to the topic of the compensation he's receiving. You see, he spent just over a year in a residential school and is now waiting for his compensation cheque to arrive. It's for $60,000 which he thinks is quite nice. some of his acquaintances have already received there compensation.

That would be another example of the Government acting in good faith to settle these matters. So why do you insist they are breaking the law when in fact it is the Natives who are flagrantly violating the law. I don't believe there is any circumstance that provides legal sanction for the destruction of both private and public property. Nor for the purposefull disruption of legitimate communities and their inhabitants.

[jennie]

Any appeals to doing the morally right thing in this matter hold no water considering the thug behaviour of Six Nations people for the last two years.

I am referring only to doing the LEGALLY right thing.

Now answer my real question: Do you support encouraging our governments to obey Canadian laws?

[jennie]

Our Government is following the law. they are negotiating in good faith with the Natives and moving to settle the whole land claims issue. As you yourself have stated numerous times, they have already settled four of the Haldimand Tract claims. So how is this indicative of the Government wanting to screw the Natives?

There are two legal issues:

1) Federal government settling the land claims. (There are 28 claims. None are settled, though an offer was made for 4 claims.)

2) While that is in progress, Federal and Provincial governments must consult with Six Nations about all development on the disputed land.

The second is where we are running into problems. The province continues to issue development, mining, logging, quarrying licenses FOR LAND THAT IS ABORIGINAL TITLE, or where title has not yet been determined.

How can the government be negotiating in good faith when it is also trying to 'steal' the land for its own profit during the actual negotiations for that land?

One can only conclude that the government is trying desperately to maintain control of land, by fair means or foul.

In other words, the government is still all about fraud and theft, and not about honesty and fulfilling our legal responsibilities.

Last night I was at a friends house, a Native guy we know dropped by for a beer. Of course our conversation turned to the topic of the compensation he's receiving. You see, he spent just over a year in a residential school and is now waiting for his compensation cheque to arrive. It's for $60,000 which he thinks is quite nice. some of his acquaintances have already received there compensation.

That would be another example of the Government acting in good faith to settle these matters. So why do you insist they are breaking the law when in fact it is the Natives who are flagrantly violating the law. I don't believe there is any circumstance that provides legal sanction for the destruction of both private and public property. Nor for the purposefull disruption of legitimate communities and their inhabitants.

The government has acknowledged sexual and physical abuse in the schools, only as a result of losing lawsuits. There are many many more things the government still has to answer for. The death and disappearance of children in the schools has not been addressed.

Our government, in my experience, does the absolute minimum and only when forced to, regardless of whether it is breaking laws.

[AngusThermopyle]

(

There are 28 claims. None are settled, though an offer was made for 4 claims.)

Whoaa! Back up that buggy!

Previously you have stated that the four claims were actually settled thus giving validity to the rest of the frivolous claims on the Haldimand Tract.

So what is it? Do the offers confer validity? Or is validity still an open question to be decided?

I'm anticipating your answer, I'm curious as to how serpentine your rationalization will be.

[Posit]

(

Whoaa! Back up that buggy!

Previously you have stated that the four claims were actually settled thus giving validity to the rest of the frivolous claims on the Haldimand Tract.

So what is it? Do the offers confer validity? Or is validity still an open question to be decided?

I'm anticipating your answer, I'm curious as to how serpentine your rationalization will be.

Keep up with the program....

There was a offer on the table recognizing 4 claims. They would not have made the offer if there was no validity to the Haldimand Proclamation as some are wont to say. The Haldmand was Six Nations territory all 966,000 acres.

The next part was based on the fact that there are 28 claims pending. The argument that Six Nations had no right at all to the Haldimand because the Proclamation never received Royal Ascent, or that the Simcoe patent undid the Haldimand Proclamation is moot.

So now the negotiators recognize 4 of the claims and another 28 are pending....get it.....?

As each one of the claims is examined no doubt there will be evidence presented on both sides to support their case. So far the stuff the government has presented they themselves have admitted doesn't hold water. Thus they made an offer and Six Nations immediately laughed out loud at it. Then out of respect and goodwill, the Confederacy asked for an accounting - why would the government offer $125 million, where is it supposed to go and how is it apportioned against each of the 4 claims, since one claim alone extends into the $billions? The short answer is: there is no apportionment and we simply drew a figure from the air and threw it on the table. Being gracious again, the Confederacy has requested that the government provide some accounting for that offer.....I expect the long answer to be not much different than the short answer given our negotiators' penchant for not taking these talks serious.

The government -federal, provincial & municipal - are breaking the law. They continue to allow and approve development along the Haldimand without consulting Six Nations. They are also in contravention of the law concerning Tyendinaga, Grassy Narrows and Ardoch. So the question remains:

"Do you support encouraging our governments to obey Canadian laws?"

It has been asked an number of times and you seem afraid to answer. Seems you get caught in your own myths once the real "Rule of Law" is pointed out...

[kengs333]

Any appeals to doing the morally right thing in this matter hold no water considering the thug behaviour of Canadian people for the last two hundred years.

I corrected your sentence for you kengs333.

Wow, talk about juvenile.

[jennie]

In an interesting development, Six Nations elected Council Chief is getting into the act, and requesting a meeting with the Haldimand County Council.

It is interesting to me as an observer, that while the elected Council Chief and the Confederacy Council do not see eye to eye much, the facts about the land never vary.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/252783

Six Nations letter a 'signal' to talk

The Hamilton Spectator

HALDIMAND (Sep 22, 2007)

Six Nations elected Chief Dave General stands behind a toughly worded letter warning that more native protests would occur, unless all development is stopped along the Grand River.

In a letter sent to Haldimand and dated Aug. 17, Six Nations "reminded" council of recent events at the Douglas Creek Estates and another development in Hagersville. It recommended a halt to any approvals until land claims have been settled.

"This would greatly help to avoid any future protests/occupations within our mutual territories," reads the letter, signed by Councillor George Montour, chair of the Six Nations Lands and Resources Committee.

...

Trainer was so taken aback by the strong tone of the letter she initially thought it might be a hoax .

But she is anxious to sit down with General to discuss its contents and clarify any misunderstanding.

Trainer said the province now encourages her council to consult with the HDI as well as the Six Nations band council on development issues.

Lars Eedy, spokesman for Aboriginal Minister David Ramsey, said local councils have to follow provincial legislation.

"The province doesn't accept any additional layer of development approval," he said.

[email protected]

[ScottSA]

In an interesting development, Six Nations elected Council Chief is getting into the act, and requesting a meeting with the Haldimand County Council.

It is interesting to me as an observer, that while the elected Council Chief and the Confederacy Council do not see eye to eye much, the facts about the land never vary.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/252783

Six Nations letter a 'signal' to talk

The Hamilton Spectator

HALDIMAND (Sep 22, 2007)

Six Nations elected Chief Dave General stands behind a toughly worded letter warning that more native protests would occur, unless all development is stopped along the Grand River.

In a letter sent to Haldimand and dated Aug. 17, Six Nations "reminded" council of recent events at the Douglas Creek Estates and another development in Hagersville. It recommended a halt to any approvals until land claims have been settled.

"This would greatly help to avoid any future protests/occupations within our mutual territories," reads the letter, signed by Councillor George Montour, chair of the Six Nations Lands and Resources Committee.

...

Trainer was so taken aback by the strong tone of the letter she initially thought it might be a hoax .

But she is anxious to sit down with General to discuss its contents and clarify any misunderstanding.

Trainer said the province now encourages her council to consult with the HDI as well as the Six Nations band council on development issues.

Lars Eedy, spokesman for Aboriginal Minister David Ramsey, said local councils have to follow provincial legislation.

"The province doesn't accept any additional layer of development approval," he said.

[email protected]

"This would greatly help to avoid any future protests/occupations within our mutual territories,"

Obviously out to set up a tin pot dictatorship, as long as he can keep the paychecks rolling. This is a blatant protection racket.

[jbg]

So does that mean we can tie them to a stake, cut their nipples off and burn them as per native tradition, when they cross our terrirtory?

Or should civilised Canadain law take precident?

Ah, but that's consistency, the hobgoblin of small minds.

[jennie]

Green, NDP support blockade; Candidates weigh in on First Nation protest outside of political riding

Posted By SARAH DEETH

Posted 1 day ago

The ongoing First Nations blockade at a proposed uranium mine at Sharbot Lake, two hours east of Peterborough, is sparking a reaction from some local candidates.

Peterborough Green Party candidate Miriam Stucky has expressed full support for the Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations groups who are opposing the mining.

The blockade has been in place since June 29, preventing the company Frontenac Ventures from prospecting for uranium, citing environmental and land-ownership concerns.

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/Art...uth=SARAH+DEETH

---

EDIT

This post was the Opening Post of a previous thread once titled: Green, NDP support (Algonquin) blockade

subtitled: Candidates weigh in on First Nation protest which is no longer accessible as a separate thread.

As with all merged threads, all of the original posts from all of the threads are preserved and displayed in chronological order.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Charles Anthony
multiple thread merged into current thread

[geoffrey]

How can you support illegal activity? This will cost the NDP votes outside of Toronto. People that actually see the rest of the world, don't really favour Indians seizing development and blockading everything as they see fit.

[ScottSA]

There go the NDP swing votes...now, who will lose worse...Dion for supporting lawless thugs or Jack for supporting lawless thugs?

Edited September 23, 2007 by ScottSA

[kengs333]

The Greens don't have the same appeal provincially that they have federally, so I think that the Greens will be gaining much by making this sort of stand. In general, I agree with their stance on the environment, and during the last decade they have become somewhat more centrist, although still have a few issues that I don't see eye-to-eye with. But siding with peoples that resort to goon tactics in order to push their racial-nationalistic agenda is not going to improve their already precarious position.

As for the NDP, well, two words sums up their chances of getting elected: Bob Rae.

[jennie]

How can you support illegal activity? This will cost the NDP votes outside of Toronto. People that actually see the rest of the world, don't really favour Indians seizing development and blockading everything as they see fit.

It's an anti-uranium thing. It has support inside and outside the city, I think.