Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[Riverwind]

You mean if our governments don't bargain in good faith, perhaps, we could run into a problem ... if our governments don't protect our property deeds.

Well the government can protect existing property owners by simplying denying all of the aboriginal claims and changing the constitution if that gets in the way.

However, I suspect you would not be happy with that option.

[jennie]

Well the government can protect existing property owners by simplying denying all of the aboriginal claims and changing the constitution if that gets in the way.

However, I suspect you would not be happy with that option.

I suspect you wouldn't be successful in implementing that option.

I think it falls in the realm of 'not a feasible option'.

[Riverwind]

I suspect you wouldn't be successful in implementing that option.

I think it falls in the realm of 'not a feasible option'.

More feasible than handing the Grand River Tract over to Six Nations.

[jennie]

More feasible than handing the Grand River Tract over to Six Nations.

The Confederacy has asserted jurisdiction over land use in the Haldimand Tract.

Ownership of various parcels is what is being worked out in negotiations.

[ScottSA]

Anybody has the right to belong to a collective. Families, extended families, hold property, companies, etc in common.

They have a right. Chances are they are all the same race. So if families are not multicultural, they cannot collectively inherit ??

What ARE you saying here?

I'm saying that Indians make up Indian bands. I didn't think I was being particularly vague in my phrasing. Yes, indeed the "chances are" that they are the same race, and the inheritance rights that you are rather transparently trying to slide over into the category of "family," involve alleged "rights" that no other canadian enjoys. Because they are not the same race. It's exactly the same as apartied, but its too lucrative to give up for the hordes of leaches who have stolen whatever dignity Indians still had. Indians have become known as the non-productive sluggards of society, and for some reason Whitey is so imbued with guilt for the largely imagined sins of the father that we put up with it. But what's going to happen when non-Whitey takes power? People who owe you nothing but are continually asked to pay for endlessly re-interpreted and often entirely fabricated "treaties?"? What happens then? I'd start looking for a job that doesn't involve trying to pull the wool over people's eyes were I you.

[ScottSA]

The Confederacy has asserted jurisdiction over land use in the Haldimand Tract.

Ownership of various parcels is what is being worked out in negotiations.

That's about as legally functional as me asserting jurisdiction over it. In fact I think I will. Send Chief whatshisname to talk to me, and tell him to bring me some rent. Cigarettes or beer will do if the gazillions the government has given him this year have run out.

[AngusThermopyle]

asserted jurisdiction

Without proof and a hard fast undisputed decision thats about as meaning full as a child grabbing all the toys and shouting "mine, mine".

Now I think about it thats a pretty apt analogy.

[jbg]

The Confederacy has asserted jurisdiction over land use in the Haldimand Tract.

Ownership of various parcels is what is being worked out in negotiations.

I think their basis for "asserting jurisdiction" is flimsy. It is, after all, based on oral history. What happened to the rule of law?

If these people had to take back the land, and receive no government baksheesh aid I don't think they'd be in such a hurry to do so.

[Posit]

I think their basis for "asserting jurisdiction" is flimsy. It is, after all, based on oral history. What happened to the rule of law?

If these people had to take back the land, and receive no government baksheesh aid I don't think they'd be in such a hurry to do so.

Funny isn't it..... The "Rule of Law" INCLUDES the determination that oral history is MORE valid that written British history and is to be given EQUAL or better weight in deciding what agreements exist between First Nations and the Crown. Secondly, the "Rule of Law" INCLUDES First Nations' rights to determine what happens to land they have an interest in.

Too bad you use so much hyperbole to try to make a case that really isn't there.

Funny isn't it......?

[jennie]

Without proof and a hard fast undisputed decision thats about as meaning full as a child grabbing all the toys and shouting "mine, mine".

Now I think about it thats a pretty apt analogy.

Actually, it is more like this: You stole some of their their toys. They are saying "We will let the legal negotiation process decide ownership. However, in the meantime we are asserting jurisdiction over the USE of the toys to ensure that they are not destroyed."

[M.Dancer]

Oral tradition ain't worth the paper it's written on. It should be given a hair's weight in deciding any settlements. What I would rather see id DNA linkage from archaeogical sites comapred to the people who claim they are the rightful owners.

If So and So from what ever nation is a near relative to someone dead and buried 500 years ago, fine, add that to the argument. But any claims based on heresay (oral tradition) should be given low value, as we know they are prone to change over time.

[M.Dancer]

You can clarify what you are referring to if you like.

Or answer my question: If they have to renounce 'something' to become a Canadian citizen, what are they 'renouncing' if not sovereignty?

YOu should do your homework. They don't have to renounce a thing and haven't needed to in decades.

[Posit]

Oral tradition ain't worth the paper it's written on. It should be given a hair's weight in deciding any settlements. What I would rather see id DNA linkage from archaeogical sites comapred to the people who claim they are the rightful owners.

Oh you should do YOUR homework....... The Supreme Court of Canada already ruled oral history is sometimes more valuable than written records in determining what the content of the agreements with the Crown were. So your opinion is worth squat. The "Rule of Law" confirms oral history is not only valid but necessary to present the customs and rights prior to contact on issues of lands rights and aboriginal rights.

[jennie]

YOu should do your homework. They don't have to renounce a thing and haven't needed to in decades.

Then what WERE they renouncing?

[M.Dancer]

Then what WERE they renouncing?

Welfare.

[M.Dancer]

....... The Supreme Court of Canada already ruled oral history is sometimes more valuable than written records in determining what the content of the agreements with the Crown were.

Speaking of worthless opinions......

that oral history should

be “placed on an equal footing” with written

history. The Court noted that it would put an

“impossible burden of proof”

sources of evidence in specific land claims.

http://www.indianclaims.ca/pdf/facts_oralhistory_2005.pdf

When documentry evidence and physical evedence conflict with hearsay, guess who is going to win?

Oral evidence is worthless, in my opinion. In a lot of these land extortion cases, it is also perjurous. But hey, that's tradition.

[Posit]

Speaking of worthless opinions......

http://www.indianclaims.ca/pdf/facts_oralhistory_2005.pdf

When documentry evidence and physical evedence conflict with hearsay, guess who is going to win?

Oral evidence is worthless, in my opinion. In a lot of these land extortion cases, it is also perjurous. But hey, that's tradition.

Of course your opinion is worthless.

The Delgamuukw decision means that oral history can no longer be excluded automatically and that it will be examined and weighed as rigorously as written history before being accepted as proof.

R. v Marshall

12 Thirdly, where a treaty was concluded verbally and afterwards written up by representatives of the Crown, it would be unconscionable for the Crown to ignore the oral terms while relying on the written terms....

. . . when considering a treaty, a court must take into account the context in which the treaties were negotiated, concluded and committed to writing. The treaties, as written documents, recorded an agreement that had already been reached orally and they did not always record the full extent of the oral agreement...

Looks like yours doesn't even qualify as a minority opinion.

[M.Dancer]

Of course your opinion is worthless.

R. v Marshall

Looks like yours doesn't even qualify as a minority opinion.

Your position is clearly dishonest.

There are two issues here that you are gladly glossing over.

One is you speciously claim that oral (hearsay) history is sometimes given more weight than real evidence......

And two the examples you have given show oral history parallel to written history.

But the issues at hand are not whether some tribe's memory of a treaty jives with the written one, but whether a tribe's myths concerning where they lived 500 or more years ago where this is no parralel written record exists. Copnsidering these same oral histories alos include animals turned into humans and vuce versa, I think we can all agree to dismiss them as interesting myths.

[Posit]

Your position is clearly dishonest.

There are two issues here that you are gladly glossing over.

One is you speciously claim that oral (hearsay) history is sometimes given more weight than real evidence......

And two the examples you have given show oral history parallel to written history.

But the issues at hand are not whether some tribe's memory of a treaty jives with the written one, but whether a tribe's myths concerning where they lived 500 or more years ago where this is no parralel written record exists. Copnsidering these same oral histories alos include animals turned into humans and vuce versa, I think we can all agree to dismiss them as interesting myths.

Wrong the case in point is that In R v. Marshall the Court held oral history to be more weighted than the written agreement:

12 Thirdly, where a treaty was concluded verbally and afterwards written up by representatives of the Crown, it would be unconscionable for the Crown to ignore the oral terms while relying on the written terms....

You must have glossed over that statement.....The court ignored the terms of the written agreement since it was written by the Crown after the oral agreement had already been made. And in doing so they arbitrarily altered the context of the agreement without consent.

"Copnsidering these same oral histories alos include animals turned into humans and vuce versa, I think we can all agree to dismiss them as interesting myths." And of course the framers of the Constitution put their faith in the invisible God......And the courts require a swearing on a book as one of the affirmations of "Truth".

However much your ignorance again dominates your thinking processes, please pay attention. The context of oral history in Iroquois legality differs tremendously from the stories they tell to teach children lessons. Being less convinced of time lines Haudenosaunee story-telling is based on preserving the lessons derived from certain events. In some cases those stories are like the fairy tales we have told our children over and over again to drive home the lessons of a moral society. You do remember the Three Little Pigs, right. So do pigs really build houses?

However, the context of the legal history, those events certified by Wampums and recitations is like the recall of an eye witness passed on to an officer investigating a crime. Yet much more powerful, since mnemonics was a skilled honed over generations. The repetition of oral recall of events had to be relayed over and over again and it was never dependent on one or two historians but committed to hundreds of historians throughout the Confederacy. And while the little memory games you played and lost in public school are not indicative, you would have to imagine hundreds with a photographic memory reading a years worth of Handsard and being able to go to the volume, page and paragraph to find a particular phrase made by a particular MP. The court has a number of tests by which it validates oral history and one of them is to be able to identify the lines in which it was passed down, confirmed by additional sources stemming from another line that matches. And regardless of your inferior opinions on the matter the Court has made oral history a valid source of historical information and recollection of agreements. And when the written does not jive with the oral, the Court must subject both to tests to try to determine the motivation behind a misrepresentation. So far very little of the oral history present thus far has been dismissed but quite a few British documents have been determined to be misrepresentative of the agreements that were made.