Canada has a land problem and their solution is cultural genocide

This is a continuation of the feudalism and treaty posts that I wrote a few weeks ago.  This time I'm going to examine Rupert's land and it's sale to 'Canada' on July 15, 1870.  

Source:  hbc.com

I read a lot of books and when my dad passed away in 2014, I found a book in his library that just happened to belong to my great grand father Felix Pagé.  He moved his family to St. Albert in 1900 and was the first employee of St. Albert when it became an incorporated village in 1904.  So it is no surprise that he had this book in his possession due to his political and business involvement in the community.

The study of law seems to run in the family as I have a signed copy his book:  The Statutes of the Province of Alberta passed in the second session of the First Legislative Assembly (1907).  Alberta became a province in 1905, so this book provided a unique look into what statutes looked like 111 years ago.  

I found sections within this book that further supports my previous posts that the courts jurisdiction comes from England and not the BNA act.  But a very interesting date kept coming up within the legislation;  July 15, 1870.  It is found about half way through subsection 5 which you can see here.

and it shows up yet again in subsection 9 on the next page.

So what is this date all about?  July 15, 1870 is the date when the Hudson's Bay Company sold Rupert's land to Canada.  Rupert's land is a huge chunk of Turtle Island (North America) and how the company got this land is the problem I want to address.

Source: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hudson_Bay

In 1670 Hudson's Bay Company received a charter from King Charles II of England.  In that charter it stated that the king's cousin Prince Rupert of the Rhine, was granted:

"the sole Trade and Commerce of all those Seas, Streights, Bays, Rivers,  Lakes, Creeks, and Sounds, in whatsoever Latitude they shall be, that  lie within the entrance of the Streights commonly called Hudson's  Streights, together with all the Lands, Countries and Territories, upon  the Coasts and Confines of the Seas, Streights, Bays, Lakes, Rivers,  Creeks and Sounds, aforesaid, which are not now actually possessed by  any of our Subjects, or by the Subjects of any other Christian Prince or  State”, “and that the said Land be from henceforth reckoned and reputed  as one of our Plantations or Colonies in America, called Rupert's Land.”  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert%27s_Land

I highlighted a section of the charter in bold as this is a critical component of the charter.  It stipulated that the charter would not apply should the land already be possessed by subjects of the King or any other Christian Prince or State.  This is what many refer to as the Doctrine of Discovery.  I wrote about this in two posts already.

https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/an-introduction-to-the-treaty-issues-on-turtle-island

https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/colonization-started-long-before-turtle-island

But there is more.  To be clear on a few terms:

Plantation:  4. A settlement in a new or conquered country; a colony.  A company of settlers or colonists. - Oxford Unabridged dictionary 1958

Colony:  A settlement in a new country; a body of settlers, forming a community politically connected with their parent state;

That means in 1670, millions of square miles of land was claimed and turned over to a corporation run by the kings cousin without any regard for the people who were already there.  Doctrine of Discovery turned those people into flora and fauna, beasts of the land and not capable of owning or exercising sovereignty unless they were Christian.  So the land was unoccupied and free to be claimed.  No war necessary in order to conquer it.  You and I both know that is a fraudulent claim but made "legal" because of the authority of the Pope.  Oh how convenient is it to make laws that benefit the King to justify theft, murder, genocide and other actions that are very un-Christian!

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 then 'let' the Indians 'use' the land.

 And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and  Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories  not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, ..." - Royal Proclamation 1763

My argument is that the King saw the Indians as subjects, not sovereign nations and these documents prove that point.  They 'let' them use the land?  What the hell does that say about their relationship with the Indians?  When the Hudson's Bay Company sold the land to the Government of Canada on July 15, 1870, the Government went straight to work to sign treaties with the Indians.  WHY?  If the Government already claimed the land, why do they need treaties?  The Indians were already subjects of the King.  What was the point?

Even then, questions were raised about the validity of this land transfer as there were questions about how the Hudson's Bay Company got the land to begin with.

“No explanation has been made of the arrangement by which the country  (Rupert’s Land) is handed over to the Queen, and that it is her Majesty who transfers the country to Canada with the same rights to settlers as  existed before. All these poor people know is that Canada has bought the Country from the Hudson’s Bay Company, and that they are handed over like a flock of sheep to us.” - Sir John A. McDonald

In my books an explanation is required and mandatory.  Without it, the land sale is null and void as it is fraudulent.  The numbered treaties are null and void as they are founded on fraudulent land patents that resulted from the land sale.  Which then means that most of the land in 'Canada' should be returned to the people of Turtle Island as the titles that people hold are also fraudulent documents.  Oh imagine the mess.  No wonder they don't want to pull on that thread.  

The king could not just sign a charter turning over millions of square miles of land without settling the title of the land with the indigenous peoples that were here.  That had to happen prior to 1670 and it did not happen.  A good write up can be found in this Wikipedia article.

I propose that as far as the king was concerned the numbered treaties were not peace treaties but succession treaties, signed in an attempt to resolve the Indian problem in the hopes that these questions would not be raised.  Because the problem did not go away, concerted efforts were made to wipe them all out.  If they could succeed in killing off the Indian, then the issue of title would go away.  That genocide continues to this day.  

Canada has a HUGE problem and nobody seems interested in talking about it.  This problem will not go away and in fact is escalating as more and more indigenous peoples are learning the truth about what happened in 1670 and standing up to the fraud that has unfolded for hundreds of years.  I live in territory regarded as Treaty 6.  The indigenous version of the treaty is a peace treaty as that was their intent and spirit during these treaty signings.  In order for me to maintain the peace, it is wise that I accept the indigenous version of the peace treaty 6.  Not the version written down by the Crown in fraud, but by the spirit of their intent when they went into ceremony to solidify a relationship they thought was based on peace, freedom and sharing.  

The Government of Canada needs to remedy this land issue ASAP and stop the genocide that continues to this very moment and shows no signs of stopping.