International Law, Native and Quebec Claims...

[CDNBear]

BP-412E​

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND THE
1995 QUEBEC REFERENDUM:
A SURVEY OF THE ISSUES​

Prepared by:
Jill Wherrett
Political and Social Affairs Division
February 1996​

.(15)ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
The arguments put forth by the different parties raise questions about rights to self-determination, the conditions for secession, and rights to territory that are based in international law. This section discusses the concepts of self-determination, secession, and territorial integrity; both broadly and as applied to aboriginal peoples. Given the complexity of the issues and the evolving nature of international law, it is evident that different interpretations can be presented.
A. Self-Determination
Quebec supporters of secession and the Cree both present arguments based on a right to self-determination. While the principle of self-determination has evolved at the international level, it lacks a precise definition in international law; governments and legal scholars take many different positions on the issue. The development of the concept shows a continuing conflict between the principle of having peoples freely determine their political status and the principle of territorial integrity of states.
1. History and Evolution of the Concept in International Law
During the latter stages of World War I, the principle of self-determination began to emerge as an element of international law. In the 14 points he put forward as part of United States’ approach to peace process in 1918, American President Woodrow Wilson advocated a moderate version of self-determination, intended to apply to the peoples of Europe, particularly those formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire. A more radical version of self-determination, articulated by Lenin prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, advocated self-determination as a means for the liberation of all peoples subject to a colonial order.(16)
Wilson’s more restrictive view of self-determination took prominence at this time. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not clarify the principle of self-determination, but the League made it clear that no positive international right to secession existed.(17) While the international community failed to adopt the right of self-determination to protect "peoples" within existing states it did embrace the principle of "minority rights." A "minority group" within a segment of a state would receive the support of the international community if its rights to self-determination, short of secession, were being infringed.(18)
In the period during and after World War II, an ethos of nationalism and anti-colonialism began to spread. There continued to be a split in the international community, however, between those who challenged the colonial order, and countries that remained committed to retaining their colonies.
2. United Nations Documents and Self-Determination
Following the creation of the United Nations, the process of clarifying and interpreting the concept of self-determination began. At its inception, the U.N. Charter clearly did not include any general right of self-determination; it characterized self-determination as a principle, rather than a right. Article 1(2) stated one of the U.N.’s guiding principles: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."


The pressures of decolonization movements gradually led to a broader interpretation of a right to self-determination. In 1960, in a significant move, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples.(19) The Declaration provided in Article 2 that "(a)ll peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." While this document is essential political in nature and is of questionable legal authority, it has provided the groundwork for what may be called the new U.N. law of self-determination. As international law scholar Richard Falk has noted:

The thinking expressed in Resolution 1514 remains important in understanding the most recent post-colonial phases of struggle with respect to the application of the right of self-determination, although it does not attempt to clarify the specific legal content of the right, nor does it identify the circumstances of its application and their limits.(20)​

In 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the final text of the two International Covenants on Human Rights. The texts of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize that all peoples have the right to self-determination.
Again, no definition of the right to self-determination was provided in the documents. Comments formulated during the drafting of these documents suggest that the right of secession was not meant to be embraced by this provision, which is the position held by most international legal authors. The few who have attempted to prove otherwise put forward the argument that, in spite of existing ambiguity, both Covenants were adopted unanimously, stating a universal principle of the right to self-determination that could not exclude a right to secede. They further view their position as supported by the language of the Covenant, which grants a right of self-determination to "all peoples" and not just to colonies or other non-self-governing territories.


Efforts to reconcile conflicting opinions over the principle or right of self-determination culminated in a new U.N. resolution in 1970. The influential Declaration Concerning Friendly Relations Among States(21) reasserted the principle of the equality of the rights of peoples and their right to self-determination established in the U.N. Charter:

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.​

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.​

The Declaration seems to indicate that respect for the territorial integrity of a state should be given precedence over the exercise of self-determination. Thus, it would preclude secession. It has been suggested, however, that the Declaration reasserts the principle of territorial integrity but in a more conditional form, indicating a "potential receptivity to and loopholes for self-determination claims that are not strictly reconcilable with the primacy previously accorded unconditionally to territorial integrity and political unity."(22)
A broad view of the right encompasses both "external" self-determination, through which a people freely determines its status within the international community and liberates itself from alien rule, and "internal" self-determination, through which a people chooses the desired system of government and the nature of the regime. Thus, external self-determination includes the classic sense of the right -- that of secession and the formation of a new state. It may also include integration into an existing state or association with another state. Internal self-determination involves a people determining their own destiny within the boundaries of an existing state.
As is evident from the preceding discussion, self-determination is an ambiguous concept without a clear definition. As a result, the status of the right in international law is subject to varying interpretations. Richard Falk argues that the right has matured along three paths; morality, politics, and law; with international law lagging behind moral advocacy and political practice.(23) He notes that international law literature supports two opposite tendencies: the first limits self-determination by insisting on the unconditional territorial unity of states; the second, reformulated legal approach "acknowledges the unsettled character and scope of the right but takes note of the degree to which diplomatic recognition and admission to the United Nations have been granted to entities formerly encompassed by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia."(24) While some legal debate continues over the status of self-determination as a legal right versus a political principle, in Falk’s opinion it has become generally accepted as a norm of international law.
The international law documents discussed above refer to the self-determination of "peoples." There is, however, no generally accepted definition of this term in international law; as a result, its meaning varies and remains contentious. Elements that have been identified include a common language, history, culture, race or ethnicity, way of life and territory. The notion of peoples also includes a subjective element -- a present consciousness of group identity and a will to protect that identity.(25)3. Secession
Secession, as understood in international law, refers to the creation of a state without the consent of the former state to which the breakaway entity was joined.(26) As scholars in international law have pointed out, secessionist self-determination is an issue separate from a general right of self-determination.(27)
International law supports secession or independence for "peoples" or "territories" only in exceptional situations.(28) While international law does support the right of self-determination of all peoples, it has generally limited the right to secede to special conditions of decolonization in the third world. Although most international lawyers agree that the U.N. Charter does not encompass the right of secession, various justifications for secession have been offered.(29)
4. Territorial Integrity
Territorial integrity, the principle that supports the inviolability of the territory of state, is recognized in Article (4) of the U.N. Charter.
In the case of secession for colonized or subjugated peoples, international practice has followed the principle of uti possidetis, by which a colonized area becomes independent using the state boundaries established for the colony. It was first applied to the Spanish colonies in Latin America, and has since been adopted in other areas. This rule intended to maximize continuity and stability, to limit ethnic claims, and to minimize conflict. However, some authors have noted that uti possidetis is not a mandatory principle under international law, and that its application has been variable.

 

[CDNBear]

B. Current International Norms and Aboriginal Peoples
International law dealing specifically with indigenous peoples is a fairly recent development. The 1989 ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples is contemporary international law’s most concrete statement of indigenous peoples’ rights.(31) The Convention recognizes the limits that have been placed on the rights of indigenous peoples, and their aspirations to control their own institutions, way of life and economic development and to maintain their identities, languages and religions. It urges governments to promote indigenous cultural integrity, to safeguard land and resource rights, and to consult the peoples concerned and establish means by which they can participate in representative institutions and develop their own institutions.
The Convention does not specifically address the issue of self-determination. Article 1(3) states: "the use of the term ‘peoples’ in this Convention shall not be construed as having any application as regards the right which may attach to the term under international law." This provision was included to meet the concerns of countries, in particular Canada, that the Convention not be interpreted as supporting the right of indigenous peoples to complete self-determination in international law.(32)
In 1982, the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations was established.(33) The group has met nearly every year since that time in an effort to develop the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The central debate has been the formulation of the right of self-determination, with aboriginal peoples advocating the explicit inclusion of the right in an unrestricted form, and state representatives arguing against such a full legal recognition. The 1993 Draft Declaration contains the wording: "Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." The draft does not contain a definition of "indigenous peoples." This text has been supported by the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Some indigenous organizations have criticized the draft text for not going far enough, while governments generally argue that it goes too far.(34) Erica-Irene Daes, Chair of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, has emphasized that indigenous peoples generally do not aspire to separate statehood, and has described self-determination for indigenous peoples as autonomy or internal self-government, within existing states.(35)
Reflected in disputes over indigenous self-determination are different approaches to what constitutes a "people" for the purposes of self-determination. Indigenous peoples have sought a broad application of the term. Some commentators view indigenous peoples as minorities within nations and as such would deny them various rights, including self-determination.(36) Others have argued that indigenous peoples are unquestionably "peoples" in every social, cultural, and ethnological meaning of this term, as evidenced by their distinct languages, laws, traditions and histories.(37)
The question of the rights of indigenous peoples under international law remains controversial. James Anaya has suggested that, while several states have resisted the express use of the term "self-determination" in association with indigenous peoples, there is a widely held international consensus that indigenous peoples are entitled to continue as distinct groups, in control of their own destinies.(38)

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/...P/bp412-e.htm#ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW(txt)

 

[CDNBear]

[SIZE=+2]Court decision pleases Native leaders[/SIZE]
By Paul Barnsley
Windpseaker Staff Writer
OTTAWA
As the federal government and the Parti Québécois continue their sovereignty battle over the traditional territories of Mohawk, Algonquin, Cree, Montagnais, Mi'kmaq and other Indigenous peoples, new legal strength and protection has been added to the case for the sovereignty claims of the original inhabitants of what is now called Quebec.
Quebec First Nation leaders were watching the court decision closely, as were leaders across the country.
"This decision greatly delights us since it supports what we have always upheld, and that is that, as peoples, we have Aboriginal rights, Native rights and treaty rights which cannot be swept away by a backhand from the federal and provincial governments," said Quebec Regional Chief Ghislain Picard.
National Chief Phil Fontaine also lauded the elements of the decision.
"As part of this decision, the court recognizes the validity of our arguments in the whole issue of the rights of the First Nations," he said. "Now it is up to us to develop these arguments to ensure that our rights will be protected in the possible event of a possible Quebec separation."
The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision Aug. 20 on a reference case put to it two years ago by the federal government. The federal government wanted the top court in the land to answer a few sticky legal questions that rose out of the separatist movement in Quebec.
The government asked the court to answer three questions:
Question 1: Under the Constitution of Canada, can the government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question 2: Does international law give the government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question 3: In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?
A reference case is best described as a government asking a court: What would happen if . . ?
The decision rendered by the nine justices is a more than 80-page long display of high-level legal learning about international law, constitutional law, minority rights, and more. But it has no direct legal clout, except that it adds to the case law that lawyers can refer to in future arguments and allows the parties in a potential dispute to see what might be waiting for them down the road if they ever decide to go to court.
Quebec refused to officially participate in the court hearings, but an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" was appointed by the court to argue the separatist point of view. Andre Joli-Coeur, the Quebec City lawyer who performed that function, argued that the question of Quebec's right to declare independence from Canada was a political question and should not be decided by a court. The Supreme Court justices disagreed.
"They do not ask the Court to usurp any democratic decision that the people of Quebec may be called upon to make," Chief Justice Antonio Lamer wrote on behalf of the court. "The questions, as interpreted by the court, are strictly limited to aspects of the legal framework in which that democratic decision is to be taken."
Joli-Coeur argued that the Quebec provincial government is sovereign over its territory because it was elected by a majority of the popular vote. Therefore, he said, Canada has no say if Quebec decides to leave.
The court pondered that argument and decided that democracy is more than just the tyranny of the majority.
"The court in this reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy," the court wrote. "Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favor of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and, accordingly, secession of a province "under the Constitution" could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework."
Since the French majority in Quebec find themselves in the unique position of being a majority that constitutes a minority in the overall makeup of Canada, the court found it necessary to deal extensively with the rights of minority groups in a democracy. It was in this area where the most important steps for Aboriginal rights were made.
"Canadians have never accepted that ours is a system of simple majority rule. Our principle of democracy is richer. . . In this way, our belief in democracy may be harmonized with our belief in constitutionalism. Constitutional amendment often requires some form of substantial consensus precisely because the content of the underlying principles of our Constitution demand it. By requiring broad support in the form of an "enhanced majority" to achieve constitutional change, the Constitution ensures that minority interests must be addressed before proposed changes which would affect them may be enacted," the court wrote. "It might be objected, then, that constitutionalism is therefore incompatible with democratic government. This would be an erroneous view.
Constitutionalism facilitates- indeed, makes possible - a democratic political system by creating an orderly framework within which people may make political decisions. Viewed correctly, constitutionalism and the rule of law are not in conflict with democracy; rather, they are essential to it. Without that relationship, the political will upon which democratic decisions are taken would itself be undermined."
The court argued that a country's values are defined in its constitution and those values should not be lightly changed to suit the whims of the majority.
"Undoubtedly, one of the key considerations motivating the enactment of the Charter, and the process of constitutional judicial review that it entails, is the protection of minorities. However, it should not be forgotten that the protection of minority rights had a long history before the enactment of the Charter. Indeed, the protection of minority rights was clearly an essential consideration in the design of our constitutional structure even at the time of Confederation: Although Canada's record of upholding the rights of minorities is not a spotless one, that goal is one towards which Canadians have been striving since Confederation, and the process has not been without successes," Justice Lamer wrote.
The court decision then went on to the second question that dealt with international law rather than Canadian internal law.
"[A] right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development," the court wrote.
The answers to the first two questions made answering the third question unnecessary, the justices decided.

http://www.ammsa.com/windspeaker/WINDNEWSSEP98.html

 

[MikeyDB]

I have just one little question for you Bear then of course you're free to continue..

Several thousand years ago, single celled creatures clustered together to form multi-celled creatures, many believe because the adaptive nature or quality of interaction necessary for complex life to emerge and survive compels organisms (successful ones at least) to higher degrees and levels of complexity not previously surviving the hostile environment in which it they or "we" found ourselves....

Heck let's call it evolution for a laugh....

We've been able to determine...now "determine" in this sense isn't an absolute...like many other ideas pretend to be, but describes our current best "thinking" on a particular subject...

As multi-celled creatures outgrew their immediate environment (now of course I'm talking geologic epochs here, not just a century or two ago... grew fins legs flaps, wings and so on...they spread throughout the survivable environment.

"Natives" don't own squat Bear....

Nor did the British the French or any other national entity for that matter....

Ownership is the concept in question here and I'm sure you'll agree that beyond the "natural" territoriality of wild animals, insects and so on..."ownership" is a very human and hence entirely artificial concept...

 

[MikeyDB]

Cheeeze...all that and I forgot to ask the question....Yes Bear I am that daft...

By what "right" can anyone lay claim to something they didn't create?

 

[CDNBear]

I have just one little question for you Bear then of course you're free to continue..

Several thousand years ago, single celled creatures clustered together to form multi-celled creatures, many believe because the adaptive nature or quality of interaction necessary for complex life to emerge and survive compels organisms (successful ones at least) to higher degrees and levels of complexity not previously surviving the hostile environment in which it they or "we" found ourselves....

Heck let's call it evolution for a laugh....

We've been able to determine...now "determine" in this sense isn't an absolute...like many other ideas pretend to be, but describes our current best "thinking" on a particular subject...

As multi-celled creatures outgrew their immediate environment (now of course I'm talking geologic epochs here, not just a century or two ago... grew fins legs flaps, wings and so on...they spread throughout the survivable environment.

"Natives" don't own squat Bear....

Nor did the British the French or any other national entity for that matter....

Ownership is the concept in question here and I'm sure you'll agree that beyond the "natural" territoriality of wild animals, insects and so on..."ownership" is a very human and hence entirely artificial concept...

Cheeeze...all that and I forgot to ask the question....Yes Bear I am that daft...

By what "right" can anyone lay claim to something they didn't create?

An excellent question Sir, and one I am glad you asked.

We do not claim ownership in the realestate sense of the word. We claim right by presense. stuardship and treaty. We were left as the caretakers, by the Great Spirit. Therefore the Clan Mothers, as the binding force of the 6 Nations, are the rightful title holders.

How'd that do for an answer?

I do not think of you as daft Sir, sometimes "trying", but daft? No, sir. As long as you and I remain civil, that will not change.

 

[L Gilbert]

I own my stuff simply because it doesn't look like anyone else wants to. A griz can "own" a territory or a kill simply by right of might. (Um, me or you, too, for that matter).

 

[MikeyDB]

Wonderful answer!

So is the angst felt among our people regarding sacred land and the disdain and contempt with which the European interlopers treat our people and our ideas sufficient in your opinion to justify APCs, machine guns and spilling the blood of the Gichee Manitou's creations?

 

[MikeyDB]

I own my stuff simply because it doesn't look like anyone else wants to. A griz can "own" a territory or a kill simply by right of might. (Um, me or you, too, for that matter).

Ah a disciple of Plato!

Could you provide me with the exact quote from Republic that contains that observation?

My Latin and Greek are woefully inadequate but I believe the essence of it was that in a society it is the strong who rule by dint of their facility to kill....enslave....dehumanize and generally crap all over anyone who's "weaker" in a militaristic brutal and barbaric sense.

Aint we come a long way Bayyyyyyyyybe!

 

[L Gilbert]

Nope. I also prefer to live and let live. I'm here, someone comes along and tells me to move, I say give me money or go away. Otherwise they can visit here, live next door, or whatever. The whole thing behind me is to do no harm, but if I would come to harm because of someone else, I will react in kind.

 

[CDNBear]

I own my stuff simply because it doesn't look like anyone else wants to. A griz can "own" a territory or a kill simply by right of might. (Um, me or you, too, for that matter).

But it is actually our birth right to protect the land. In so being, the Clan Mothers hold title in stuardship. We never sold or gave up the land at the beginning, we agreed to share, it wasn't until it was engrained in us that we could find financial gains through land holdings or realestate transactions, that we began to have issues. In the Grand River Reserve of the 6 Nations, we ran into trouble years ago, with debt outside the reserve with agricultural supply companies. As we were able to purchase on credit, but the suppliers were unable to collect, because at the time, Natives could not enter into contracts, so courts could not award them the monies owed. So, as a gesture of good will the Council gave up tracks of land to be sold or bartered off to cover their debts. An act that angered many. I see it as a mature and cooperative move, that served the community well. The 6 Nations of the Grand has never seen the srife that the French Mowhawks have, go figure, they are in Quebec. The Grand is in Ontario.

Some Nations, refuse to follow their Councils into land claims ratification, because they do not agree that the council has the right to negotiate on the lands, because we do not own it, the Great Mother does. We are merely its guardians.

When we say our land, we are actually referring to "Our land to protect".

 

[L Gilbert]

Ah a disciple of Plato!

Could you provide me with the exact quote from Republic that contains that observation?

My Latin and Greek are woefully inadequate but I believe the essence of it was that in a society it is the strong who rule by dint of their facility to kill....enslave....dehumanize and generally crap all over anyone who's "weaker" in a militaristic brutal and barbaric sense.

Aint we come a long way Bayyyyyyyyybe!

Boyoboy, you guys sure take things seriously considering that I stuck a smilie in with my comment. I haven't read "The Republic". Plato is a primitive.

 

[CDNBear]

Wonderful answer!

So is the angst felt among our people regarding sacred land and the disdain and contempt with which the European interlopers treat our people and our ideas sufficient in your opinion to justify APCs, machine guns and spilling the blood of the Gichee Manitou's creations?

If push come to shove sir, we are more then willing to dig in and shove back. The difference is that we are shoving for survival, a primordial instinct. One not prone to deep thoughts of the RoE or the well being of innocents. A reaction I hope never to see, but would be a willing particapant if need be.

Do not forget that the Great Spirit shines on the Warrior as well, and as such a Warrior earns his place at the Council Fire in the end, by actions taken to preserve his people.

 

[MikeyDB]

Is the harm that's been created by other people who convince you that their way of thinking is the more "correct" way of thinking your responsibility too?

You've a somewhat naive perspective on what condition of existence many other people are prepared to alocate to your existence....on the basis of their fervent beliefs of course....

If I'm wrong in this observation I stand to be corrected but the "idea" that we can all live and let live hasn't demonstrated (yes the exercise of the notion is limited) longevity or stability....

There's a United States or a China or a Saudi Arabia or a Russia or someone else who always thinks you need to be "informed" of the more acceptable way of thinking and they're (and us as well) more than prepared to convince you at the end of a bayonet...

I'd rather intercede before we get to that kind of "negotiation"...

 

[CDNBear]

Is the harm that's been created by other people who convince you that their way of thinking is the more "correct" way of thinking your responsibility too?

You've a somewhat naive perspective on what condition of existence many other people are prepared to alocate to your existence....on the basis of their fervent beliefs of course....

If I'm wrong in this observation I stand to be corrected but the "idea" that we can all live and let live hasn't demonstrated (yes the exercise of the notion is limited) longevity or stability....

There's a United States or a China or a Saudi Arabia or a Russia or someone else who always thinks you need to be "informed" of the more acceptable way of thinking and they're (and us as well) more than prepared to convince you at the end of a bayonet...

I'd rather intercede before we get to that kind of "negotiation"...

Is this to me Mikey?

 

[MikeyDB]

I respectfully disagree Bear.

This could evolve into a lengthy dialogue but I believe that the instuction/advice given by Martin Luthor King to his people was and remains entirely germane today in the context of native issues.

We won't get anywhere fighting an enemy that controls the keys to the kingdom and the cost in blood that would be exacted by this kind of behavior...that could only lead to defeat and great hardship for everyone involved is exactly what the lodge meeting and the pipe are all about. We are granted the good fortune to live in a world that has an abundance, an abundance that can be shared and yet we keep seeing this sharing of this abundance decried. As King said don't expect the white man to free you...free yourself through education and hard work....

The alternative isn't any different than a Moslem or a Hindu or a Tutsi or any other people/belief that seeks to address wrong by creating more wrong...

 

[L Gilbert]

But it is actually our birth right to protect the land. In so being, the Clan Mothers hold title in stuardship. We never sold or gave up the land at the beginning, we agreed to share, it wasn't until it was engrained in us that we could find financial gains through land holdings or realestate transactions, that we began to have issues. In the Grand River Reserve of the 6 Nations, we ran into trouble years ago, with debt outside the reserve with agricultural supply companies. As we were able to purchase on credit, but the suppliers were unable to collect, because at the time, Natives could not enter into contracts, so courts could not award them the monies owed. So, as a gesture of good will the Council gave up tracks of land to be sold or bartered off to cover their debts. An act that angered many. I see it as a mature and cooperative move, that served the community well. The 6 Nations of the Grand has never seen the srife that the French Mowhawks have, go figure, they are in Quebec. The Grand is in Ontario.

Some Nations, refuse to follow their Councils into land claims ratification, because they do not agree that the council has the right to negotiate on the lands, because we do not own it, the Great Mother does. We are merely its guardians.

When we say our land, we are actually referring to "Our land to protect".

I realize this. However, at one time the various bands in BC laid claim to 114% of BC all claiming to have stewardship over it. Well, people being people, there would be conflicts as there were many years ago over who did what, where with the overlaps. It's silly when all the issue needed was cooperation.
I look at it in terms of use more than anything else. I use what I use and am perfectly willing to share unless someone tries force or coercion. I consider the use of this piece of land mine because I earned the right to use it, someone else did the same thing before me, and no doubt someone will earn it's use it after me. IOW, I make a ham sandwich to eat and someone comes along with the intention of grabbing it, I'm likely to get cranky and skewer their mitt with a fork. If they ask for some, I'm easy and will make them a sandwich or share mine.

 

[MikeyDB]

No Bear sorry for not specifying....it was to L. Gilbert

 

[CDNBear]

I respectfully disagree Bear.

This could evolve into a lengthy dialogue but I believe that the instuction/advice given by Martin Luthor King to his people was and remains entirely germane today in the context of native issues.

We won't get anywhere fighting an enemy that controls the keys to the kingdom and the cost in blood that would be exacted by this kind of behavior...that could only lead to defeat and great hardship for everyone involved is exactly what the lodge meeting and the pipe are all about. We are granted the good fortune to live in a world that has an abundance, an abundance that can be shared and yet we keep seeing this sharing of this abundance decried. As King said don't expect the white man to free you...free yourself through education and hard work....

The alternative isn't any different than a Moslem or a Hindu or a Tutsi or any other people/belief that seeks to address wrong by creating more wrong...

If I put the pipe on the table and the one I wish to make peace with and foster a life of sharing for 7 generations, takes the pipe, table and the ground under it and pushes me to the side. Should I turn the other cheek? I can for myself, but the mandate of the Great Mother is to seek peace and justice for the 7th generation. Therefore, I can not, I must rise up and vanguish those that would rob the unborn of their birth right to protect the Turtle under us.

I do not seek war, as much as some of my rhetoric may dictate otherwise, I am a peaceful person, I seek harmony. I see the opposite in those in the Quebecuois movement. They seem intent on the destruction of the whole.

I fear for our soveriegnty under a fascade of a Free Quebec. Therefore I grind the okre flowers and collect the charcoal and prepare my war paint. One side black, the other red.

If peace is there intent, then they must include us, we are not expendable, nore are we to be ignored.

I realize this. However, at one time the various bands in BC laid claim to 114% of BC all claiming to have stewardship over it. Well, people being people, there would be conflicts as there were many years ago over who did what, where with the overlaps. It's silly when all the issue needed was cooperation.
I look at it in terms of use more than anything else. I use what I use and am perfectly willing to share unless someone tries force or coercion. I consider the use of this piece of land mine because I earned the right to use it, someone else did the same thing before me, and no doubt someone will earn it's use it after me. IOW, I make a ham sandwich to eat and someone comes along with the intention of grabbing it, I'm likely to get cranky and skewer their mitt with a fork. If they ask for some, I'm easy and will make them a sandwich or share mine.

We were willing to share as well, that was until sharing became taking and taking and taking. Then things changed. Now we must fight to protect what would be taken by theft by deception.