[EyeBrock]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

PJB PJB:

Just waiting for you to pop in on this Donny...Do you think that illegal activites are not illegal on 'native' soil?

Just because you say something is yours (Calder Case BC 1973) or you declare something illegal (Marshall 1999) it does not make it so. Marshall is based on a 1760 Treaty read the summary here: http://arcbc.tripod.com/marshall_summary.htm

PJB PJB:

Do you agree that it is ok for natives to be more heavily armed than those who are supposed to enforce the laws of the land?

To me they are one and the same so I suppose that makes your question moot.

$1:

Do you agree with seperate, 'soverign' lands within one nation?

I believe that a deal is a deal. If you have bought your land fairly and acted honestly and with integrity - or failing that have conquered your territory within the justifications and boundaries of your own law than you can ask that question and draw your own conclusion.

However, I note Calder 1973 as being the basis for most land claims against Canada today as our rights have not been extinguished. Again, your own laws reinforce my position on that. Saying that we have no right to the soil that you live on is a falsehood. Canada is duly obligated by her own laws to reconcile and account for every square inch of her land mass.

Furthermore, failing that you open a whole can of worms up in terms of property law. The laws we use the guarantee our rights as the first people here are the same laws that you and I and every property owner, public of private, use in Canada to guarantee our rights as owners.

$1:

Where do we draw the line? Do we move the border crossing away from this reserve? If we have to who pays for it because it would affect both Canada and the United States, and why are they not screaming at the U.S border guards because they are armed 100 yards away from the Canadian border guards. Perhaps they are afraid that their 'storming' would result in a hail of bullets.

Who knows? Unfortunately for you, you cannot arbitrarily dictate the way things are going to be. Obviously the Mohawk feel very strongly about this issue and they are willing to stand up for their rights, weather they are perceived or real. If this were a purely homogenous country without the mess and entanglement of different groups of people with rights and agreements and treaties and languages and histories then all of this would be easy.

I don't know. The Mohawks could be wrong. However being disingenuous by calling them all criminals or drug traffickers does not really reinforce any claim that you may have to dictate and enforce laws on their land. In fact, it is that exact attitude that the Natives of this country are somehow less law abiding and have less integrity than non-aboriginal people that leads you to these issues.

Claiming that "by rights" have the god given right to do whatever you want in Canada without thinking about the legal history and the real property rights really causes yourselves alot of problems.

There is no way these issues will go away. It is up to you weather we resolve them peacefully through discussions and legal agreements as equals. Or face the consequences of creating unrest by arbitrarily imposing your laws on a group that may or may not choose to agree with those laws.

The case law you have cited maybe good for other First Nations but you are ignoring the fact that the Mohawks didn't settle in this area until they landed with Haldimand and the British-American refugees in the 1790’s, well after some unamed and unsourced 1760 treaty that you quote.

These are not sovereign lands that negotiated treaties with the British or Canadian governments.
These were lots of land given as land grants in exactly the same way the American and British settlers got them, for service to the Crown.

I have pointed this out to you numerous times and you choose to ignore it because the historical facts are at odds with your 'all natives are the same' stance.
Well quite patently they are not same as land claims in Manitoba or BC. Your ignoring these facts makes your other arguments re natives less credible.

You should accept the fact that the Mohawks have a tenuous claim to these lands in Southern Ontario at best and they have the same rights as the descendants of the Loyalists whose ancestors also sold off their lands, given by the British Crown, to the speculators of the day.

Your propaganda just ignores historical fact. Keeping on saying it won't make it any less of an untruth.

[Donny_Brasco]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

with Haldimand and the British-American refugees in the 1790’s, well after some unamed and unsourced 1760 treaty that you quote.

Open the link and read the article. That is what a link is for. Opening and reading. That is so we do not have to reproduce every single word from another web site.

You will find the article and the treaty. The web site being the source. And you will find even more sources there!

Welcome to the internet.

[EyeBrock]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

with Haldimand and the British-American refugees in the 1790’s, well after some unamed and unsourced 1760 treaty that you quote.

Open the link and read the article. That is what a link is for. Opening and reading. That is so we do not have to reproduce every single word from another web site.

You will find the article and the treaty. The web site being the source. And you will find even more sources there!

Welcome to the internet.

Donny, I have studied this stuff and I am well aware of the history of the region I live in. Prior to the Mowhawks this area was mostly Missisagas, who were ravaged by TB brought by the few English and French settlers in the south of what became Upper Canada. This area was sparsley settled by the Englsh after the Seven Years War and it wasn't until the aftermath of the American Revolution that both the Mowhawks and British Americans came here.

I'll read your link though. But it is the internet not a sourced historical document.

[Donny_Brasco]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

I don't know. The Mohawks could be wrong. However being disingenuous by calling them all criminals or drug traffickers does not really reinforce any claim that you may have to dictate and enforce laws on their land. In fact, it is that exact attitude that the Natives of this country are somehow less law abiding and have less integrity than non-aboriginal people that leads you to these issues.

I did not in fact say that they were right.

$1:

Obviously the Mohawk feel very strongly about this issue and they are willing to stand up for their rights, weather they are perceived or real.

That is what I said.

And given Oka and Ipperwash and Caladonia you can bet that they are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

I get your point about being settlers. There is obviously way more history than that. But they have a good track record of being right when they choose to do something rather than let you impose your will on them.

[EyeBrock]

Ok, the Marshall decision, whatever anybody thinks about it, addressed a specfic issue with Mik-maqs from New Brunswick, and related to an older treaty from the former colony of New Brunswick. This has nothing to do with what the Mowhawks are doing, unless you can connect the two? I'm open to input.

[Donny_Brasco]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'll read your link though. But it is the internet not a sourced historical document.

It is a summary. If you want to read the entire document be my guest.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs3-456/1999rcs3-456.html

[Donny_Brasco]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ok, the Marshall decision, whatever anybody thinks about it, addressed a specfic issue with Mik-maqs from New Brunswick, and related to an older treaty from the former colony of New Brunswick. This has nothing to do with what the Mowhawks are doing, unless you can connect the two? I'm open to input.

Again, I sourced that document in the context that what you, being a representative of the Crown, tell me what I can or can't do - and what I actually can or can't do are two different things. Legally.

So if you are telling the Mohawks to be good little wards of the crown and obey your laws they may not be legally bound to follow your command.

But like I said - they may be wrong I do not know.

However I do understand the law and I do understand there are a great many treaties and promises and issues that lead them to where they live today. And I bet that they have a perception of righteousness because of their history. And I further bet that your oversimplification of their present arrangement overlooks a great many rights and privileges that they were promised when they settled here.

[EyeBrock]

I've read it before off the SCC website. This addresses treaties.

The Mohawks didn't have a treaty. They were treated much the same as the Hessian (German) mercenaries who were also given land grants in Upper Canada when they and the Mohawks came up in the 1790's.
The historical facts don't support the Mohawks modern claims to this area, as well as their groundless 'we are a sovereign nation' assertions.
It's as absurd as all the descendants of the Germans who fought for the British claiming Kitchener/Berlin back.

[Donny_Brasco]

If that is true then why are they living on reserve with treaty cards?

That would be as absurd as you living on a reserve with other white folks with treaty cards...if in fact they are not treaty Indians living on Indian land with all the rights and privileges as I have.

Is it your assertion that they are not entitled to the same rights and benefits as the rest of us First Nation people?

I don't see too many Germans hunting and fishing and showing the conservation officers their status cards in lieu of a license. If they are settlers just the same then your logic is flawed somewhere.

[EyeBrock]

The flawed issues are the facts that the Mowhawks are treated differently when they are immigrants just like the rest of us.

[OnTheIce]

Time for the military.

Roll over the lands with a few dozen tanks, perhaps an air strike or two and re-claim the land.

Enough is enough of having your cake and eating it to.....then demanding more.

The saddest excuse for Canadians and an International embarrassment.

[Scape]

Says the guy with a golf course as an avatar...

[saturn_656]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Time for the military.

Roll over the lands with a few dozen tanks, perhaps an air strike or two and re-claim the land.

Enough is enough of having your cake and eating it to.....then demanding more.

The saddest excuse for Canadians and an International embarrassment.

Maybe not the military, send the border guards back with a large RCMP escort.

[Scape]

You mean like the Surete' Du Quebec? Ask Corporal Marcel Lemay how that went.

[PJB]

Good come back there Scape...Guess we have to wait for legal aid to pay for your defense!