Should Indian Reservations be Disbanded?
PJB @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:16 pm
LOL Donny...Love your second answer...
thelaw @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:30 am
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
thelaw thelaw:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
neopundit neopundit:
What makes you think that "non-aboriginals" don't want to see this happen? Unlike you, apparently, I don't care who is creating wealth for the economy, as long as they earn it.
There seems to be a few people around here who would rather pay Indians welfare then to have their land returned to them (land claims). It seems pretty ironic that some white folks (and grainfed) can't see that had these lands never been taken that perhaps us Indians could have used it for something instead of having to rely on handouts from them.
OR, worst case scenario, Canadians need someone to be giving handouts too and therefore need to keep First Nations in poverty and therefore the cumulative lost value of all of those 800-1000 land claims (i.e. 800 claims over 100 years (on average) at an average potential value of $100,000 per year (lowball if all relative to today's dollars) is $8 Billion dollars). Add to that the lost opportunity of having people working, training, developing businesses for that 100 years on all of those 800 plus sites - lets say for arguments sake we could have had a 10 fold gain over that 100 years, that $80 Billion dollars...
WOW, and Canada is still dragging her feet and you guys are talking about eliminating reserves because ... you like paying handouts???
You answer the question. Let’s get it dealt with and lets all stop paying.
Or you can agree that Natives should forget about these claims and start from Zero and give up their reserves and try to fit in to non-Aboriginal society under someone elses terms. Can you see a potential problem there?
Treaty -a compactmade between 2 or more independent nations- Who do the natives claim treatys with who were the independent nations; and what were their teritory of control?
Canada was a colony until 1931 and not a sovereign nation so it could not sign any treaties before that no more than i could.
As for land claims the same applies; i will sign a land claim settling all first nations land claims giving the natives the province of Quebec.; or treat them as equals and settle their claim as was the settlement the Chinese were given for their loss of property.
The first nations did not own the land, they were just squatters ; without legal title.
Produce the title and legal discriptian of the land you claim.
In comparison the Palistinians of Israel had valid title and were booted out without any compensation.Native leaders have been complaining to the wrong people; their complaint is With Britain.
Seems to me that if it were that simple you would have done away with this issue by now. Unfortunately for you we have plenty of legal rights to the land you live on. And you can no more send us to live in Quebec then we can send you back to whatever hole you and your forefathers were kicked out of.
Your name must be one of those oxymorons, it says "THE LAW" yet you have less then zero understanding of it. Perhaps you should take a few law classes and tell your classmates and Profs your take on these issues. I'm sure they'll commend you for such a witty joke, which is what your interpretation of this situation is...
Or perhaps you should intervene as an expert in International Law at some of our court hearings. I'm sure the "CROWN" and the judges would love to be enlightened. They might even get a little embarrassed when you point out (to these highly educated legal minds) that you have solved this simple riddle by merely ignoring all previous legal precedent and inventing your own version of reality.
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:32 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
Or perhaps you should intervene as an expert in International Law at some of our court hearings. I'm sure the "CROWN" and the judges would love to be enlightened. They might even get a little embarrassed when you point out (to these highly educated legal minds) that you have solved this simple riddle by merely ignoring all previous legal precedent and inventing your own version of reality.
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Something you may wish to consider: In spite of all the thousands of Court challenges revolving around treaties throughout Canada, the USA and Australia, virtually none are peer reviewed or their jurisprudence seriously considered by international law academics.
Food for thought when you advance the mythical solidarity of "International Law".
The Royal Proclaimation (1763) recognized Indian Title to Land. THis land may not be taken without justly compensating the said Indians and cannot be taken by anyone other then the British Crown.
$1:
And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government. they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do. by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever. provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside. and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit. by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade:
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:44 am
thelaw thelaw:
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Challenge the law? That what I do on Friday nights...this is Tuesday....
Anyway we are challenging you to uphold your own laws. It’s a shame that you would turn your back on your own written laws to avoid paying for the land you now live on.
Furthermore, should you deny us our legal rights to the land we claim was taken inappropriately then you set a dangerous legal precedent. You make it legal for the government or anyone else to steal anyone else’s land without compensating them for it.
So it may be convenient for you to draw up obscure perceptions about International Law and where First Nations people really come from, but the fact is we have legal grounds to make massive land claims all over the country.
Like I said before: You steal our land and our ability to feed ourselves off of that land and put us on welfare...and then turn around and shame our people for being on welfare.
Maybe you should be finding out which families and companies benefited from the theft of Indian land and make them repay us Indians and the Canadian taxpayer.
CrazyCanuck007 @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:29 pm
Should Indian Reserves Be Disbanded?
yes
PJB @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:44 pm
Donny...You make some valid points regarding the land claims issue and I agree that something has to be done about it but, don't you think that it is rather ridiculous when a band with a rather small population claims a huge amount of land? I can see them being entitled to what the treaties originally set out but when a band claims basically all of Southern Manitoba it sounds more like greed than a valid claim.
thelaw @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:31 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
Or perhaps you should intervene as an expert in International Law at some of our court hearings. I'm sure the "CROWN" and the judges would love to be enlightened. They might even get a little embarrassed when you point out (to these highly educated legal minds) that you have solved this simple riddle by merely ignoring all previous legal precedent and inventing your own version of reality.
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Something you may wish to consider: In spite of all the thousands of Court challenges revolving around treaties throughout Canada, the USA and Australia, virtually none are peer reviewed or their jurisprudence seriously considered by international law academics.
Food for thought when you advance the mythical solidarity of "International Law".
The Royal Proclaimation (1763) recognized Indian Title to Land. THis land may not be taken without justly compensating the said Indians and cannot be taken by anyone other then the British Crown.
$1:
And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government. they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do. by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever. provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside. and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit. by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade:
thelaw @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:45 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
thelaw thelaw:
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Challenge the law? That what I do on Friday nights...this is Tuesday....
Anyway we are challenging you to uphold your own laws. It’s a shame that you would turn your back on your own written laws to avoid paying for the land you now live on.
Furthermore, should you deny us our legal rights to the land we claim was taken inappropriately then you set a dangerous legal precedent. You make it legal for the government or anyone else to steal anyone else’s land without compensating them for it.
So it may be convenient for you to draw up obscure perceptions about International Law and where First Nations people really come from, but the fact is we have legal grounds to make massive land claims all over the country.
Like I said before: You steal our land and our ability to feed ourselves off of that land and put us on welfare...and then turn around and shame our people for being on welfare.
Maybe you should be finding out which families and companies benefited from the theft of Indian land and make them repay us Indians and the Canadian taxpayer.[/quote]You MUst be thinking like a jew and Isreal; with their land claims. What did the government do to the land claims the chines had title to in canada when the government put them in internment camps. You get the same equality settlement, less all the welfare and other payments, you now owe more than you can ever repay...
thelaw @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:45 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
thelaw thelaw:
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Challenge the law? That what I do on Friday nights...this is Tuesday....
Anyway we are challenging you to uphold your own laws. It’s a shame that you would turn your back on your own written laws to avoid paying for the land you now live on.
Furthermore, should you deny us our legal rights to the land we claim was taken inappropriately then you set a dangerous legal precedent. You make it legal for the government or anyone else to steal anyone else’s land without compensating them for it.
So it may be convenient for you to draw up obscure perceptions about International Law and where First Nations people really come from, but the fact is we have legal grounds to make massive land claims all over the country.
Like I said before: You steal our land and our ability to feed ourselves off of that land and put us on welfare...and then turn around and shame our people for being on welfare.
Maybe you should be finding out which families and companies benefited from the theft of Indian land and make them repay us Indians and the Canadian taxpayer.[/quote]You MUst be thinking like a jew and Isreal; with their land claims. What did the government do to the land claims the chines had title to in canada when the government put them in internment camps. You get the same equality settlement, less all the welfare and other payments, you now owe more than you can ever repay... You can't claim you made a deal and now complain someone stole your land; no more than I can claim all the land and make a deal with sally to rent part of it.
thelaw @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:58 pm
D.B why don't you move to Alaska and demand the territory back with all your massive might. How much money did you get when it was sold??
thelaw @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:55 pm
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 claimed all the land for the British crown and how its laws were to be applied ; including giving native Indian hunting rights at the crowns plesure. -That is what it did . It did not give the indian title to any land ; but made provision for giving Soldiers land for their service; such as 5000 acres for a field officer down to 50 acres for a private man, with no such land for any indian
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:03 pm
thelaw thelaw:
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 claimed all the land for the British crown and how its laws were to be applied ; including giving native Indian hunting rights at the crowns plesure. -That is what it did . It did not give the indian title to any land ; but made provision for giving Soldiers land for their service; such as 5000 acres for a field officer down to 50 acres for a private man, with no such land for any indian
[quote]And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians...[/quote]
It’s the first line in the quote man...
Give it a rest. We have had this recognized by the courts already as establishing our claim to many areas of land in Canada.
You may have a different opinion then the court, but that does not make you right.
Like I said, if you are a legal expert, intervene in the land claims process and tell the court how wrong we all are.
For example, at Ipperwash the government expropriates land that was set aside for the First Nations under the War Measures Act with the promise to return the land after the war was over. Is it fair that they keep it when these Indians could have been using it to earn a living off of instead of having you and I pay welfare for them?
Or for example, the Indian agent on Fishing Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan illegally sold Indian land for his own personal game, giving the Indians less land to earn a living on and putting the rest of Canada on the hook for their well being. I guess you would say they have no claim either.
And given the fact that it was not until the '40's or 50's that Indians could obtain outside legal council without the Indian agent's permission, I suppose you would say that that is fair.
Mr. Law I suggest you re-educate yourself on these matters and attempt to obtain some grasp of the real situation before spouting your narrow views on the matter.
Your obvious ignorance on these matters does no one any favours, and it only gives the racists and the rednecks fuel to drag these processes on for years and years costing everyone a shitload of money, except the lawyers of course. And the lawyers on both sides are paid for by the taxpayers....
grainfedprairieboy @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:17 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
The Royal Proclaimation (1763) recognized Indian Title to Land. THis land may not be taken without justly compensating the said Indians and cannot be taken by anyone other then the British Crown.
You don't understand the question.
International lawyers do not source jurisprudence from native land treaties the new world in spite of the massive number of court trials etc. Why?
thelaw @ Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:54 am
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
thelaw thelaw:
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 claimed all the land for the British crown and how its laws were to be applied ; including giving native Indian hunting rights at the crowns plesure. -That is what it did . It did not give the indian title to any land ; but made provision for giving Soldiers land for their service; such as 5000 acres for a field officer down to 50 acres for a private man, with no such land for any indian
$1:
And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians...[/quote]
It’s the first line in the quote man...
Give it a rest. We have had this recognized by the courts already as establishing our claim to many areas of land in Canada.
You may have a different opinion then the court, but that does not make you right.
Like I said, if you are a legal expert, intervene in the land claims process and tell the court how wrong we all are.
For example, at Ipperwash the government expropriates land that was set aside for the First Nations under the War Measures Act with the promise to return the land after the war was over. Is it fair that they keep it when these Indians could have been using it to earn a living off of instead of having you and I pay welfare for them?
Or for example, the Indian agent on Fishing Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan illegally sold Indian land for his own personal game, giving the Indians less land to earn a living on and putting the rest of Canada on the hook for their well being. I guess you would say they have no claim either.
And given the fact that it was not until the '40's or 50's that Indians could obtain outside legal council without the Indian agent's permission, I suppose you would say that that is fair.
Mr. Law I suggest you re-educate yourself on these matters and attempt to obtain some grasp of the real situation before spouting your narrow views on the matter.
Your obvious ignorance on these matters does no one any favours, and it only gives the racists and the rednecks fuel to drag these processes on for years and years costing everyone a shitload of money, except the lawyers of course. And the lawyers on both sides are paid for by the taxpayers....
It’s the first line in the quote man...
Give it a rest. We have had this recognized by the courts already as establishing our claim to many areas of land in Canada.
You may have a different opinion then the court, but that does not make you right.
Like I said, if you are a legal expert, intervene in the land claims process and tell the court how wrong we all are.
For example, at Ipperwash the government expropriates land that was set aside for the First Nations under the War Measures Act with the promise to return the land after the war was over. Is it fair that they keep it when these Indians could have been using it to earn a living off of instead of having you and I pay welfare for them?
Or for example, the Indian agent on Fishing Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan illegally sold Indian land for his own personal game, giving the Indians less land to earn a living on and putting the rest of Canada on the hook for their well being. I guess you would say they have no claim either.
And given the fact that it was not until the '40's or 50's that Indians could obtain outside legal council without the Indian agent's permission, I suppose you would say that that is fair.
Mr. Law I suggest you re-educate yourself on these matters and attempt to obtain some grasp of the real situation before spouting your narrow views on the matter.
Your obvious ignorance on these matters does no one any favours, and it only gives the racists and the rednecks fuel to drag these processes on for years and years costing everyone a shitload of money, except the lawyers of course. And the lawyers on both sides are paid for by the taxpayers....
thelaw @ Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:16 am
A british proclamation only applies to British controlled people and land. A British proclamation can not give anything to the people of a land not under British control. All you are doing is playing a game of deception; the government has no authority to give you anything , but have kept your promise alive to get your vote for 100 years and you still have not seen the truth.
When you rely on a British proclamation you acknowledge you loose all sovereignty to the land.