[saga]

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

The topic of this thread is "Are First Nations sovereign?", and the author, HyperionTheEvil, believes they are not.

I listened to a lawyer speak today on aboriginal rights. Indigenous people were sovereign and self governing for centuries before we Eurpoeans arrived. By law, unless they specifically gave up their sovereignty in a treaty, etc., they are still sovereign.

Knock me down with a feather! That's a shocker isn't it?

But true.

Now, when Canada negotiates a new agreement/treaty, the band or group is told they MUST extinguish their Aboriginal rights and sovereignty rights.
Canada has no right to force demand or extort them to do this. It is illegal.

None of this is simple, but new treaties which maintain all of their rights are absolutely necessary, and likely cheaper than the altenative of a long and damaging war within our own land.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee! She's cooked!

So a lawyer (paid by the Federal government to defend Indians) did what he was paid to do? That means nothing. Lawyers do and say what they are told in order to collect a paycheque. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that they are not always correct or on the side of good. Even a psychotic, rapist killer enjoys the benefit of a lawyer and that lawyer will go to the ends of the Earth and back to prove the killers innocence, so long as he's getting paid.

She volunteered her time to speak to our Community Friends group. We are a mixture of Six Nations and Caledonia and labour, and raving grannies like me!
No pay on it for her, and she is in no way involved in the dispute at all. So she can stick to the straight up law the way it is written. Not all judges read it that way yet, but that's what's written.

[themasta]

saga saga:

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

The topic of this thread is "Are First Nations sovereign?", and the author, HyperionTheEvil, believes they are not.

I listened to a lawyer speak today on aboriginal rights. Indigenous people were sovereign and self governing for centuries before we Eurpoeans arrived. By law, unless they specifically gave up their sovereignty in a treaty, etc., they are still sovereign.

Knock me down with a feather! That's a shocker isn't it?

But true.

Now, when Canada negotiates a new agreement/treaty, the band or group is told they MUST extinguish their Aboriginal rights and sovereignty rights.
Canada has no right to force demand or extort them to do this. It is illegal.

None of this is simple, but new treaties which maintain all of their rights are absolutely necessary, and likely cheaper than the altenative of a long and damaging war within our own land.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee! She's cooked!

So a lawyer (paid by the Federal government to defend Indians) did what he was paid to do? That means nothing. Lawyers do and say what they are told in order to collect a paycheque. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that they are not always correct or on the side of good. Even a psychotic, rapist killer enjoys the benefit of a lawyer and that lawyer will go to the ends of the Earth and back to prove the killers innocence, so long as he's getting paid.

She volunteered her time to speak to our Community Friends group. We are a mixture of Six Nations and Caledonia and labour, and raving grannies like me!
No pay on it for her, and she is in no way involved in the dispute at all. So she can stick to the straight up law the way it is written. Not all judges read it that way yet, but that's what's written.

Right..."volunteer"...sure. And the law is open to interpretation, that's the beauty of it. Thing is, there's what the lawmakers intended and then there's your revisionist crap. Let me ask you, was that lawyer and Indian as well? Because where I'm from, we call that "bias". If she wasn't, we call that "misguided". Saga, you are the reason that we should put old people out on ice floes.

[saga]

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

The topic of this thread is "Are First Nations sovereign?", and the author, HyperionTheEvil, believes they are not.

I listened to a lawyer speak today on aboriginal rights. Indigenous people were sovereign and self governing for centuries before we Eurpoeans arrived. By law, unless they specifically gave up their sovereignty in a treaty, etc., they are still sovereign.

Knock me down with a feather! That's a shocker isn't it?

But true.

Now, when Canada negotiates a new agreement/treaty, the band or group is told they MUST extinguish their Aboriginal rights and sovereignty rights.
Canada has no right to force demand or extort them to do this. It is illegal.

None of this is simple, but new treaties which maintain all of their rights are absolutely necessary, and likely cheaper than the altenative of a long and damaging war within our own land.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee! She's cooked!

So a lawyer (paid by the Federal government to defend Indians) did what he was paid to do? That means nothing. Lawyers do and say what they are told in order to collect a paycheque. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that they are not always correct or on the side of good. Even a psychotic, rapist killer enjoys the benefit of a lawyer and that lawyer will go to the ends of the Earth and back to prove the killers innocence, so long as he's getting paid.

She volunteered her time to speak to our Community Friends group. We are a mixture of Six Nations and Caledonia and labour, and raving grannies like me!
No pay on it for her, and she is in no way involved in the dispute at all. So she can stick to the straight up law the way it is written. Not all judges read it that way yet, but that's what's written.

Right..."volunteer"...sure. And the law is open to interpretation, that's the beauty of it. Thing is, there's what the lawmakers intended and then there's your revisionist crap. Let me ask you, was that lawyer and Indian as well? Because where I'm from, we call that "bias". If she wasn't, we call that "misguided". Saga, you are the reason that we should put old people out on ice floes.

Well ...if you are white how do you do your job without bias?
In my experience, that's more likley to occur among 'whites'.

She was not native ... no ... and you are one of those a paranoid conspiracy theorists aka tin-foil-hat people, right?

You don't expect me to take your biased (euphemism for someone who can only believe and imagine the worst about a particular race) ranting seriously do you?

Be off. You must be a twit to spill that swill.

I will defend the Haudenosanee against valid concerns.

psychotic and contemptuous drivel like this? ...suck it back upyourself!

[themasta]

saga saga:

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

The topic of this thread is "Are First Nations sovereign?", and the author, HyperionTheEvil, believes they are not.

I listened to a lawyer speak today on aboriginal rights. Indigenous people were sovereign and self governing for centuries before we Eurpoeans arrived. By law, unless they specifically gave up their sovereignty in a treaty, etc., they are still sovereign.

Knock me down with a feather! That's a shocker isn't it?

But true.

Now, when Canada negotiates a new agreement/treaty, the band or group is told they MUST extinguish their Aboriginal rights and sovereignty rights.
Canada has no right to force demand or extort them to do this. It is illegal.

None of this is simple, but new treaties which maintain all of their rights are absolutely necessary, and likely cheaper than the altenative of a long and damaging war within our own land.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee! She's cooked!

So a lawyer (paid by the Federal government to defend Indians) did what he was paid to do? That means nothing. Lawyers do and say what they are told in order to collect a paycheque. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that they are not always correct or on the side of good. Even a psychotic, rapist killer enjoys the benefit of a lawyer and that lawyer will go to the ends of the Earth and back to prove the killers innocence, so long as he's getting paid.

She volunteered her time to speak to our Community Friends group. We are a mixture of Six Nations and Caledonia and labour, and raving grannies like me!
No pay on it for her, and she is in no way involved in the dispute at all. So she can stick to the straight up law the way it is written. Not all judges read it that way yet, but that's what's written.

Right..."volunteer"...sure. And the law is open to interpretation, that's the beauty of it. Thing is, there's what the lawmakers intended and then there's your revisionist crap. Let me ask you, was that lawyer and Indian as well? Because where I'm from, we call that "bias". If she wasn't, we call that "misguided". Saga, you are the reason that we should put old people out on ice floes.

Well ...if you are white how do you do your job without bias?
In my experience, that's more likley to occur among 'whites'.

She was not native ... no ... and you are one of those a paranoid conspiracy theorists aka tin-fil-hat people, right?

You don't expect me to take your biased (euphemism for someone who can only believe and imagine the worst about a particular race) ranting seriously do you?

Be off. You must be a twit to spill that swill.

I will defend the Haudenosanee against valid concerns.

psychotic drivel? ...suck it back up!

That's ironic. You seem to see conspiracy wherever you look. Am I the paranoid one? You're the one who seems to think that all of Canadian history is about wiping out the Indians...sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist to me. Bust out the tinfoil hats granny, because the white man's a'comin'.

[saga]

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

themasta themasta:

saga saga:

The topic of this thread is "Are First Nations sovereign?", and the author, HyperionTheEvil, believes they are not.

I listened to a lawyer speak today on aboriginal rights. Indigenous people were sovereign and self governing for centuries before we Eurpoeans arrived. By law, unless they specifically gave up their sovereignty in a treaty, etc., they are still sovereign.

Knock me down with a feather! That's a shocker isn't it?

But true.

Now, when Canada negotiates a new agreement/treaty, the band or group is told they MUST extinguish their Aboriginal rights and sovereignty rights.
Canada has no right to force demand or extort them to do this. It is illegal.

None of this is simple, but new treaties which maintain all of their rights are absolutely necessary, and likely cheaper than the altenative of a long and damaging war within our own land.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee! She's cooked!

So a lawyer (paid by the Federal government to defend Indians) did what he was paid to do? That means nothing. Lawyers do and say what they are told in order to collect a paycheque. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that they are not always correct or on the side of good. Even a psychotic, rapist killer enjoys the benefit of a lawyer and that lawyer will go to the ends of the Earth and back to prove the killers innocence, so long as he's getting paid.

She volunteered her time to speak to our Community Friends group. We are a mixture of Six Nations and Caledonia and labour, and raving grannies like me!
No pay on it for her, and she is in no way involved in the dispute at all. So she can stick to the straight up law the way it is written. Not all judges read it that way yet, but that's what's written.

Right..."volunteer"...sure. And the law is open to interpretation, that's the beauty of it. Thing is, there's what the lawmakers intended and then there's your revisionist crap. Let me ask you, was that lawyer and Indian as well? Because where I'm from, we call that "bias". If she wasn't, we call that "misguided". Saga, you are the reason that we should put old people out on ice floes.

Well ...if you are white how do you do your job without bias?
In my experience, that's more likley to occur among 'whites'.

She was not native ... no ... and you are one of those a paranoid conspiracy theorists aka tin-fil-hat people, right?

You don't expect me to take your biased (euphemism for someone who can only believe and imagine the worst about a particular race) ranting seriously do you?

Be off. You must be a twit to spill that swill.

I will defend the Haudenosanee against valid concerns.

psychotic drivel? ...suck it back up!

That's ironic. You seem to see conspiracy wherever you look. Am I the paranoid one? You're the one who seems to think that all of Canadian history is about wiping out the Indians...sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist to me. Bust out the tinfoil hats granny, because the white man's a'comin'.

[CDNBear]

PJB PJB:

If, as several posters on here claim, native Canadians do not consider themselves as Canadians then why are they granted all the rights and freedoms that Canadians have without having many of the responsibilities that come with Canadian citizenship.

Is Canada going to become the North American version of Europe with a whole bunch of independant 'nations'?

For the most part Natives are held to the same laws that govern all of Canada, the Criminal Code of Canada.

There is some disention, due largely to the fact that(and I can only speak of the Six Nations here)we signed no treaty that would make us subjects of the Crown. The two row wampum and coventant chain, depicted two Nations walking in tandum, allies.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... feed&hl=en

This is a really cool video and it will answer some valid questions, with some valid answers.