Do the Native protesters in Caledonia have proof?
- Thread starter JonB2004
- Start date
Yes the admit they leased the land. But that did not mean that it was sold, even do it appears the government took it away for good in the 1840s.
So in 1835 they leased the land, and in the 1840s the government took it for good. ANd it is known on record that for some agreements, that the government would agree verbally to a lease and then have it registered as a land sale or surrender. So I think they do have a case.
So in 1835 they leased the land, and in the 1840s the government took it for good. ANd it is known on record that for some agreements, that the government would agree verbally to a lease and then have it registered as a land sale or surrender. So I think they do have a case.
RE: Do the Native protest
Thanks for the info, Jersay.
The way I see it is that if the land lease was made before 1867, the Aboriginal people should be knocking on Tony Blair's door asking for compensation or whatever they want since Britain was the one who was ruling Canada when that lease was signed.
Thanks for the info, Jersay.
The way I see it is that if the land lease was made before 1867, the Aboriginal people should be knocking on Tony Blair's door asking for compensation or whatever they want since Britain was the one who was ruling Canada when that lease was signed.
Then other agreements like the peace treaty of 1812 and the 49 parrelel shouls not be approved Jon.
Sometimes when we had our court system in London, until 1949, the Privy Council Native groups would go up to the King and Queen and ask for their assistance in these matters.
And every time they were turned back to Canada. Nowadays, though the Natives go to the U.N. which is suppose to be popular in Native areas, now to issue their complaints for example the T.B case in Manitoba.
Sometimes when we had our court system in London, until 1949, the Privy Council Native groups would go up to the King and Queen and ask for their assistance in these matters.
And every time they were turned back to Canada. Nowadays, though the Natives go to the U.N. which is suppose to be popular in Native areas, now to issue their complaints for example the T.B case in Manitoba.
Ofcourse,the land was leased.No one knows for how long or has anything on paper,but if they say it was, we must believe them.They would never lie.In Tuesday's Hamilton spectator, one of the chiefs at the barricade was asked if he knew what happened at the hydro substation? He replied" I don't know".Of course he would never lie.
Re: RE: Do the Native protesters in Caledonia have proof?
First of all, how do you know the Native protesters aren't lying? How do you know they will never lie? Thinking that they will never lie is a bad position to take.
And second, if their isn't any documents that say that the land is theirs, the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) should go down there and arrest every single one of the protesters.
wallyj said:
First of all, how do you know the Native protesters aren't lying? How do you know they will never lie? Thinking that they will never lie is a bad position to take.
And second, if their isn't any documents that say that the land is theirs, the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) should go down there and arrest every single one of the protesters.
A lease is a lease, you return the land or you keep paying for having the land.
Show proof that the government took the land legally and through a surrender, and because they are negotiating with them, it means the government did something fishy. SO your argument is pointless Wally.
Show proof that the government took the land legally and through a surrender, and because they are negotiating with them, it means the government did something fishy. SO your argument is pointless Wally.
Isn't it funny that no one has ever produced a lease agrreement?Maybe it was a verbal lease which is worth the paper it wasn't written on.Of course,this is another rule that is different for natives.Go to the caledonia website,under documents you will find the agrement that SELLS the disputed land. Pretty black and white to me.Unfortunately,brown and white is murky.
The statement above says they leased the land. What would go with a lease, I am thinking like a “Lease Payment.” Has anyone ever know the first nations to pay for anything? Firstly, show us white folks the receipt for the lease payment being made, and secondly, if you are the person who leases the property, the lease allows you to use the land for the time that you pay the lease. It does not allow or imply ownership. Maybe the first nations should write this down.
I am wondering if the first nations keep saying that they own certain parcels of land and that the whitey’s should not be going on their land, then the reverse should be true. Make the first nations people get their ducks in line and they can stay on their land and not come on to the land owned by the balance of Canadians.
I am wondering if the first nations keep saying that they own certain parcels of land and that the whitey’s should not be going on their land, then the reverse should be true. Make the first nations people get their ducks in line and they can stay on their land and not come on to the land owned by the balance of Canadians.
Re: RE: Sarcasm chasm
Nope, I got it right away. I hope you don't take this as a slam against you, it isn't, I subscribe to inifinite compassion - I will try to understand what drives your thinking.
Sarcasm is essentially a negative thing, and maybe you are generally optomistic, and therfore you don't see sarcasm. Thats reasonable.
Or, maybe it is that you have "the blinders" on?
For me, I find it is a matter of being objective, in keeping all the doors open when I read or write on subjects pertaining to opinions [as opposed to fact].
I find that people will often read or write with a "pre-formed opinion" in mind, and therefore only see what supports their opinion.
That could be partly why sarcasm isn't obvious to you... but please, I do not intend any offense by this. In fact, I am genuinely curious to find out how the conservative mind works... but maybe you don't count yourself in their numbers.
poersonally -
I am often called sarcastic, and its a quality I am trying to change. Most people really hate sarcasm, so see? - I am also on your side.
Do either of those ideas resonate with you? [optomist, blinders]
Karlin
JonB2004 said:
Nope, I got it right away. I hope you don't take this as a slam against you, it isn't, I subscribe to inifinite compassion - I will try to understand what drives your thinking.
Sarcasm is essentially a negative thing, and maybe you are generally optomistic, and therfore you don't see sarcasm. Thats reasonable.
Or, maybe it is that you have "the blinders" on?
For me, I find it is a matter of being objective, in keeping all the doors open when I read or write on subjects pertaining to opinions [as opposed to fact].
I find that people will often read or write with a "pre-formed opinion" in mind, and therefore only see what supports their opinion.
That could be partly why sarcasm isn't obvious to you... but please, I do not intend any offense by this. In fact, I am genuinely curious to find out how the conservative mind works... but maybe you don't count yourself in their numbers.
poersonally -
I am often called sarcastic, and its a quality I am trying to change. Most people really hate sarcasm, so see? - I am also on your side.
Do either of those ideas resonate with you? [optomist, blinders]
Karlin
In fact, I am genuinely curious to find out how the conservative mind works...
-----------------------karlin----------------------------------
You want to know the HOW ?
We conservatives can tell you.
Now back to the issue at hand...
-----------------------karlin----------------------------------
You want to know the HOW ?
We conservatives can tell you.
Now back to the issue at hand...
Jay said:
Hey. This is the exact reason for the dispute. According to Haudenosaunee Law, in order for any treaty to be signed with the Six Nations (or Haudenosaunee People) the Entire Mohawk Council of Chiefs must sign. There are over 120 Chiefs.
There has to be quorum or there can be no agreement.
I would assert that the fact that the late Sir Francis Bond Head, the First Baronet, K.C.H., P.C., and the former Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada insisted upon selling Six Nations territory despite their protests and opposition in 1835, would make the subsequent decisions with that territory on the part of the Crown of Canada (and its various earlier manifestations) to be somewhat lacking of legitimacy.[i said:
On another note, welcome to Canadian Content, Ahni! Should you ever need assistance with anything I would be happy to be of service; or, of course, you can contact one of the Administrators or the Moderators with any comments or questions. Good to see you jumping right into the deep end of the forum.
JonB2004 wrote:
First, using your logic, which is flawed, Canada did not become an independent country until 1931 and the Statue of Westminster.
Secondly, Canada was self-governing from at least 1849 when Baldwin and LaFontaine gaimned responsible government for the colony.
Thirdly, I believe even back in 1835 the Crowns aof Canada and Britain were separate.
First, using your logic, which is flawed, Canada did not become an independent country until 1931 and the Statue of Westminster.
Secondly, Canada was self-governing from at least 1849 when Baldwin and LaFontaine gaimned responsible government for the colony.
Thirdly, I believe even back in 1835 the Crowns aof Canada and Britain were separate.
Re: RE: Do the Native protesters in Caledonia have proof?
Are you proposing that every First Nations person in Canada lives off of Governement funds? I'll have you know I have paid for everything I own with my hard earned money, and guess what I even pay taxes.
2nd bold line:
If only things were this easy throughout the history of mankind, unfortunately it is not because if it were you would be living in Europe as we speak. Moreso great wars would not have been fought, great civilizations may have flourished rather than being destroyed by tyranny and greed.
1st bold line:justfred said:
Are you proposing that every First Nations person in Canada lives off of Governement funds? I'll have you know I have paid for everything I own with my hard earned money, and guess what I even pay taxes.
2nd bold line:
If only things were this easy throughout the history of mankind, unfortunately it is not because if it were you would be living in Europe as we speak. Moreso great wars would not have been fought, great civilizations may have flourished rather than being destroyed by tyranny and greed.
A recent article in the Toronto Star noted that there are several hundred acres in the city of Toronto that could possibly become the subject of a land claims argument.
Given the recent violence at the Caledonia site(evidently triggered by natives from another area) we can only hope that Peterson finds some equitable solution,if at least temporarily, before this situation escalates even further.
Given the recent violence at the Caledonia site(evidently triggered by natives from another area) we can only hope that Peterson finds some equitable solution,if at least temporarily, before this situation escalates even further.