theft by legislcanada’s theft, genocide and death by legislature and u.n. global governance

8/13/2019 Theft by LegislCANADAS THEFT, GENOCIDE and DEATH by LEGISLATURE and U.N. GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

1/42

CANADAS THEFT, GENOCIDE and

DEATH by LEGISLATURE and U.N.GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

And The TWO ROW WAMPUM


2/42

During our research within the past 5 years, it is obvious to us as Canadians thatthe Two Row Treaties among the Nations have existed since time immemorial. Soit is only common sense that the Haudenosaunee given their Great Law teachingsand prophecies, would have had incorporated it with all who came across theirpath and especially with the new comers.

So no matter how much the Canadian Government denies the Two Row Treatysexistence, common sense dictates otherwise. Furthermore, the Two Row alsovalidates why the Haudenosaunee have always maintained that they were allies tothe Crown and were not to be placed under the Indian act which makes perfectsense in regards to their many claims over these issues in establishing andmaintaining their Sovereignty.

The Canadian government acknowledges

the Two Row and the Covenant Chain inpublic demonstrations however, they denyit on paper as though no such treaties haveever existed with the British Crown.


3/42

Stephen Harper at a news conferencein Toronto during the G20 summit in2011 said during that interview aboutour Countrys loss of Sovereignty :

- " I know some people don't like it. Itis a loss of national sovereignty, but itis reality."

- "As I constantly remind Canadians,there isnt really a Canadian economy

anymore. It is a global economy.

NOTE: One of the reasons we nolonger have a Canadian economy islargely due to the privatization of ournatural resources to foreign

companies.

Stephen Harper is Dismantling Canadian Sovereignty for Globalism!


4/42

--- According to the United Nations GLOBAL GOVERNANCE is:

Governance is not governmentit is the framework of rules, institutions andpractices that set limits on the behaviour of individuals,organizations and companies.

In todays integrating world there is clear need for global governance for thegood of society, economy and environment.

And a form of global governance is indeed emergingbut the imbalancesin the process are cause for concern.

This is where the trap is cast through the United Nations; as theGlobalization - New world order Plan was the ultimate goal in thecreation of the United Nations!

The United Nations pg. 34

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_1999_EN.pdf

Let the lies, deceit and illusions begin!But first What is Global Governance?
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_1999_EN.pdfhttp://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_1999_EN.pdf


5/42

UN GLOBALIZATION STRATEGYPROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION is their MOTO

Mind control and manipulation of the masses at its best.

1. Create the problem 2. Get a reaction 3. Offer the solution

Careful what you wish for or you may

get more than you bargained for!


6/42

Why should the Two Row Wampum Treaty be important to all

Peoples of North America now that Globalization is in effect?

Although there are many reasons why the Two Row Wampum should beimportant to everyone, two of the most important reasons are due to the factsthat our sovereignty as an independent country is undergoing an assault as well

as the final extermination of the true Allodial Title Sovereigntyof the OriginalPeoples of Turtle Island within both Canada and the United States under theguise of globalization.

Effects of Globalization:

1. Canadas loss of Sovereignty as a country

2. Loss of Indigenous Allodial Title Sovereignty

The Two Row Wampum can help stop globalization, enforcedecolonization and reset the path of all peoples within Canada.


7/42

These same problems are happening world wide

However here in Canada, we can stop the Canadian Government of itslegislated First Nations assimilation process, their rape of the naturalresources, including the stopping of Globalization in itstrack if we are wiseenough to see through the lies and deceit of our Government and the UnitedNations by enforcing the implementation of a Two Row Wampum

Living Constitution.


8/42

The bottom Line is that we as Canadian citizens and the IndigenousFirst Nations in Canada have two choices :

1. ACCEPT the U.N. One World Government - GLOBALIZATION or ;

2. To Decolonize Canada together within the Two Row Wampum Treaty bycreating a new Canadian and First Nations Two Row Wampum LivingConstitution within a true direct democracy as it was intended through theGreat Law - White Roots of Peace.


9/42

Either way, we need to decolonize the system or accept the U.N. Corporate

Globalization which is leaving all Canadian citizens and First Nations with nopower, no say in this country.

---

A great example:

The Canada-China

Foreign InvestmentPromotion and Protection

Agreement (FIPPA)

31 yr. contract

Canadians can now besued if we interfere withChinas ability to generate

funds for its investors.


10/42

How did the Canadian MPs past and present steal Canada from the

Original Peoples, lied to and manipulated them and Canadians forcenturies?...

Frank J. Tough explains it well.

While the Government of Canada enforced attempts of assimilation and culturalgenocide such as: - Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the GradualEnfranchisement Act of 1869 and in 1876, these acts were consolidated as theIndian Act.

Quote: "The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal

system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitantsof the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.- John A Macdonald, 1887


11/42

Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, 1920

Quote: Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canadathat has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question,and no Indian department.-

1. Establishing Nationwide Indian Residential Schools2. the process of relocating Indianson a reserve, and the sole purpose of that

effect is to get rid of the Indians forcing us to carry your forms ofidentification

3. attempting to frame the land claims process in such a way as to try toextinguish our land and treaty rights and even to try to turn Nations intonothing more than tribes,we continue to exist as a separate Nations outsideof Canada.

And finally there is the question of morality, both within Canada and on theInternational stage by creating a regulation such as the Indian Act, an actrespecting Indians , which it does not respect for who I am, evolving with thechanges of time. The Indian Act is the most racial and discriminating act of itskind in the world. -

Judy Sackaney v. CRA


12/42

THE FORGOTTEN CONSTITUTION:

THENATURAL RESOURCES TRANSFER AGREEMENTS

AND INDIAN LIVELIHOOD RIGHTS, CA. 1925-1933

By FRANK J. TOUGH


13/42

FYI :

This act is3 pages longNot found in the BNAActs and statutes1867-1962


14/42


15/42


16/42

A provision for Indian hunting, fishing, and trapping rights stemming from the1930 transfer of natural resources from the Dominion of Canada to the Provincesof Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan has been an enduring legal controversy.

Most recently, inR. v. Blais,(3) the supreme Court of Canada had to contend with

a Mtis hunting right defense based on the assertion that the Mtis were Indiansfor the purpose of para. 12 of the Manitoba Natural Resources Agreement. (4)

The Court dismissed the appeal and, most interestingly, repeatedly held that theanalysis of the right "must be anchored' in the historical context of the provision(5)

Not only has the legal system not encountered a grounded historical analysis inrespect of the effect of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement" on treatyrights, but how the requirement of developing an historical analysis will prove tobe something of a task to those trained to find meaning by restricting context .

Natural Resources Transfer Agreement - NRTA


17/42

The wording of this paragraph of theNRTA is often cited by courts and

legal academic literature mechanically and completely withouthistorical depth when addressing treaty rights in the Prairie Provinces:

12. [13] In order to secure to the Indians of the Province the continuance of the

supply of game and fish for their support and subsistence. Canada agrees thatthe laws respecting game, in force in the Province from time to time shall applyto the Indians within the boundaries thereof, provided, however, that the saidIndians shall have the right, which the Province hereby assures to them, ofhunting, trapping and fishing game and fish for food at all seasons of the yearon all unoccupied Crown lands and on any other lands to which the said

Indians may have a right of access. (7)


18/42

Considerable efforts have gone into explaining what this provision really meansand what sort of legal protection it affords, largely unaided by the records thatcreated the provision in the first place. However, until Blais, little or no

consideration had been given to the plain and simple meaning of the words"Indians of the Province."

As this article will demonstrate, some rather sophisticated legal reasoning hasbeen constructed upon historically inaccurate conjectures. The definition thatwas recently "adopted" in Blais conflicts with the courtsearlier interpretationsof the right.

Today, the NRTA is largely remembered because of treaty rights litigation. Inpoint of fact, in 1930, Indian livelihood was only one issue involved in thetransfer of vast lands with natural resources and the compensation to theprovinces from the federal government for the loss of enjoyment of those lands

and resources.

The Preamble to the Alberta Agreement scheduled with the AlbertaNatural Resources Act, 1930 identified the purpose: "And Whereas itis desirable that the Province should be placed in a position ofequality with the other provinces of Confederation with respect to

the administration and control of its natural resources.

(8)


19/42

Primary historical research reveals that serious consideration was given toprotecting several Indian interests involved in the transfer and that the records of

negotiations indicate that the wording of the paragraph that would become theIndian livelihood right was not a static concept.

While the transfer of resources entailed a wide range of trusts and obligationsconcerning resource use and land tenure, the general constitutional protection forthese rights indicates a process that is very relevant to contemporary Aboriginal

rights.

It should be stated at the outset that the Indian livelihood provision of theNRTAis a constitutional right; it nevertheless has been given a series of meanings by thecourts.

The final wording of para, 12 is intricate and complex, but since it arose from aprocess that amended the Constitution, it provides some sort of constitutionalprotection for Indian livelihood. Thus, in the Prairie Provinces, the legacy ofexpressed constitutional protection for the concept of Indian rights does notbegin, as is often assumed, in 1982.


20/42

Not only have the Indian livelihood rights of theNRTA been interpreted legallywithout the benefit of considering the records that document the. intentions of

the drafters or the historical political context in which this amendment to theBNA Act" developed; also become snarled with the prairie Indian treaties. (10)

The pre-existing treaty livelihood rights are thought to have beenaltered by theNRTA.

As a consequence, several unsound assumptions have been made about thisaspect of our constitution which not only lack empirical support, but are alsolargely contradicted by historical evidence.

Another common operative assumption, held especially by advocates, is that are

no archival records concerning the NRTA or that such records cannot informthe courts of what the drafters of this major constitutional amendment wereconsidering when dealing with Indian interests in the land


21/42

Enquiry into the surrounding circumstances in which theBNA Act was amendedin 1930 has lagged far behind the understandings that courts have given para. 12.

Devoid of historical facts, efforts to link treaty hunting, trapping, and fishingrights with para. 12 of theNRTA becoming increasingly convoluted and, with eachsubsequent decision, further removed from the actual processes that devised aconstitutionally protected Indian livelihood right.

Such criticisms are tempered by the fact that lawyers and judges are handicappedby the absence of published historical literature .on the political developments thatshaped the transfer of resources. (11)

Given that over several decades, prime ministers and premiers, cabinet ministers,senior officials all seemed to have expended as much energy at working out this

transfer the of lands and resources as did the "Fathers of Confederation" atfashioning the originalBNA Act in 1867, (12) the absence of serious academicanalysis of the Constitution Act, 1930 points to a major deficiency in our nationalhistory (13) Similarly, surveys of Aboriginal rights offer few insights on theNRTA.


22/42

In Native Law, Jack Woodward provided a clear explanation of aspects ofthe hunting provision by reviewing jurisprudence on such issues as the failure ofprovincial governments to limit the agreement and the right of access.

Woodward succinctly explained the Court's interpretation of para. 12 of theNRTAas entailing a treaty right:

The agreements effectively merged and consolidated the treaty rightsof Indians in the area and restricted the power of provinces toregulate the Indians' right to hunt for food. This brought about two

important differences in the rights themselves. Under the treaties,hunting rights were general: under the agreements, hunting hasbeen restricted to hunting for food. Under treaties, hunting rightswere restricted to the tract of the land surrendered by the treaty:under the agreements hunting rights were expanded to the wholearea of the prairie provinces. (14)

The key as to how the Canadian Government stole Canadas unoccupiedlands from the Original Peoples of Canada is within this text:


23/42


24/42


25/42


26/42


27/42

FRANK J. TOUGH


28/42


29/42

DNA - Research Conclusion:

Given this information and other considerations and of the constant evidence ofcorruption within our parliament for the last two centuries, it is of my opinion

and conclusion which is so blatantly obvious to anyone researching deepenough to see that; the theft of native lands in Canada was also done byextending hunting and fishing treaty rights to Indians within the entireprovince instead of only being within the surrendered territories. (Theunoccupied lands in each province across Canada were already the Indiansland to begin with to do as they pleased and not just to fish and hunt.)

Thus, making these illegal changes gives the impression/assumptionto the common person that the Indians gave away all of their landsand only have their reserve lands and only have hunting and fishingrights off reserve.

Common sense dictates that the thefts of native lands were stolen by ways ofmaking changes to legislation over and over and re-writing the texts bychanging words here and there, to have everyone eventually believe that theIndians had agreed to surrender the lands in all of the provinces and only kepttheir hunting and fishing rights in exchange for education and healthcare

among a few other things depending on their treaty negotiations.


30/42

It is also obvious that the intention of the Indians was to keep their hunting and

fishing rights within the surrendered lands to the crown as they believed andhave always maintained to this day that they have never surrendered all landswithin their traditional territories across Canada other than those lands theyhave surrendered to the Crown conditional upon their keeping their huntingand fishing rights upon those lands.

All other unoccupied lands were always the intent that it was toremain theirs within treaty negotiations.

As Canadian citizens, it is up to us to take responsibility to make the Canadiangovernment and the courts accountable to the atrocities done to our FirstNations Peoples in our names. We must further assist in educating the

Canadian population to the real truths of our history and to supply the remedyso that all Canadians and First nations peoples can finally right the wrongs ofthe Canadian Government and of our pitiful justice system.


31/42

As conscious Canadians, we shouldand must support a complete FirstNation Political Decolonization andto also decolonize ourselves and oursystem from the colonial, paternalfraudulent relationship with the

Crown Corporation of Canada whohave continuously mislead us and theFN before it is too late given that ourpast and present politicians have andare negotiating away Canadas andthe First Nations Sovereignty and all

of our RIGHTS in exchange forGLOBALIZATION through theUnited Nations World GovernanceA.K.A. The New World Order (NWO.)by their own words.

NL


32/42


33/42

REMEDY SOLUTION

1. First Nations International PoliticalDecolonization Proclamation Removal ofPaternal relationship with the Crown ofCanada

2. First Nations Decolonization referendums

Canadian citizen (colonies) Decolonizationreferendums - Governance and Constitutionrebuilding

3. Joining together in complete partnershipwith First Nations to create a new TWO

ROW WAMPUM Living Constitution


34/42

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION


35/42


36/42


37/42


38/42

CONTACT :

Nicole LebrasseurTel: 519-774-0850

www.decolonizenorthamerica.orgEmail: [email protected]

decolonizeus@ youtube


39/42


40/42


41/42


42/42

theft by legislcanada’s theft, genocide and death by legislature and u.n. global governance

Documents