Two Constitutions:

There are two sides to every story, but in the case of the North American Native, their side is not getting proper representation in the political life of this country. When it became apparent that they wouldn't quit fighting, it was we who thrust the final hatchet, put an end to the war, and called for negotiations, because we had the bigger guns.

Since that day, negotiations have become the acceptable form of settling the score. In the eyes of the World, the one who continues to fight is the ‘terrorist’, and the one who picks up the pen first has come to be known as more civilized.

Treaties were drawn up, constitutions were made, and step-by-step the 'enemy' was transferred out of our own court, across the ocean to the former Soviet Union.

In North America historical injustices are often overlooked, because the process of negotiation seems to have excused our actions (at least in print). Recently, however, efforts were being made to identify and entrench Native rights in the constitution of Canada.

Those efforts came to a sudden halt with the failure of the Charlottetown accord. Today new agreements are being signed, but these are being negotiated outside the Constitution of Canada. The Delgamuk decision demands that any new negotiations should respect the fact that our Native peoples have certain inherent rights to the Land and the resources. But these have not yet been clearly defined.

In order to be perfectly clear about whose rights we are negotiating for, we need to understand more clearly what the original intrusion, the discovery of North America, has come to bear on the perspective of each culture.

If you were from England, you would have been on assignment for the Queen (enfranchisement of her Majesty's horizons). If it were France, it would have been a cultural reformation, a new society in a new Land. But if you were here before anyone else, you would have watched curiously when the sails came, became nervous when they started to unload, and bewildered when they decided to stay.

Whether you were looking through the trees, out the window of the boat, or stayed home with mom, home has a different meaning for each of us - depending on which side of the ocean our grandparents were from. Whether the early settlers are seen as visionaries, or as intruders, depends on how far from home our particular culture was able to venture. Expanding on that, how we view the world depends largely from which perspective our idealism was formed.

In terms of Native rights, injustices rising out of territorial encounters have occurred by and large because of the insensitivity on the part of the intruders, to the unique relationship the First Nations had with the Land, and with each other.

Many of the so-called developing countries were motivated by a new kind of idealism that emerged as a result of discovery. And as is often the case, they rationalized their actions because the scope of their idealism seemed to justify destroying anything that got in the way.

Unfortunately original Peoples in all Lands suffered this terrible humiliation.

In terms of the Land, no constitutional protection for the Land exists to this day. It's obvious that the new settlers didn't want one, because they thought they could take it all. By the time trading started, and money began to exchange hands, it became clear who was getting the best deal. This is now the case throughout the world. If there is dispute, the Native Peoples end up losing.

England is where it all started, but I think we’re well aware that it’s happening everywhere - the injustices perpetrated against Native Peoples must be dealt with on a global level.

These injustices need to be settled honorably. Resolvement of these injustices could be called historical justification. It has something to do with settling the score. But why does it always have to be under our terms?

It appears that we, the intruders, have taken steps to justify our intrusion, by making up laws to protect our idealism. The Native Peoples on the other hand, needed no laws to protect their idealism, because they had a different perspective of the Land, and their relationship with it. Plus they were not allowed to come up with a constitution of their own, even to this day!

Our society has come to accept certain statutes as necessary for conducting our affairs. Our perspective focalizes on freedom, and our constitution ensures that the privatization of our affairs is secured by law. Native peoples do not accept that the Earth can be privatized (I don’t think). But our viewpoint happens to be the popular one, because it is we who are reaping the profits from the Land. Native Peoples were here long before we came on the scene, but they don't seem to have any laws which protect their perspective. And this is true throughout the world.

The world has institutionalized its idealism to suit the initiating tendencies of humanity, but failed to take into consideration that the Earth and all living species need to be protected as well, perhaps even more so, considering the horrific environmental problems now beginning to face the world. So we need to consider both perspectives in solving the problem. The two perspectives are opposing, but equally true:

Our freedom ensures us that -	Respect requires that -
The privatization of our affairs is protected by Law	The Earth and all its living beings be protected.
Our leaders are democratically elected and politically appointed	The spirit guides and leads us in all our affairs
Our ideology has an institutional framework that nurtures the continuation of our most prized estates - our education, our health, and our discoveries.	The life cycles from child to grandfather is honored and respected, and fully acknowledged, at each stage of its progression.

Both perspectives are equally valid, but we've managed to enclose ourselves with laws and constitutions that completely protect our idealism. Their idealism has no basis under our law, because their way of life is not recognized as requiring a constitutional framework. We've been able to justify our actions by law, while the original caretakers were left looking through the trees.

The unwritten law remains unvoiced. Our original intrusion, and the eventual entrenchment of our trading policies, has left the ‘beaver’ hanging. Our actions in their eyes can never be resolved, because their ideas about privatization run counter to ours. There doesn't appear to be any place in the constitution, which describes how the Earth should be protected.

- Since the earliest of times, Native Peoples throughout the world have had their lives disrupted, because someone else has wanted something that they possessed. And since they had not developed an adequate means to protect their Lands, they consequently lost them to invaders.

Native Peoples in all Lands have suffered during the process of industrialization. And as a result, the world has lost something sacred, which might never be regained. In effect, what we have gained in the way of comforts has been wrenched from the Land, in a style that wasn't really justified in the first place.

Even to this day a form of occupation still persists. But instead of armies moving in on people, we now have companies, corporations, and governments. There is still no respect for the Land, or for its People. All eyes are on the monetary and political potentials which exist in those Lands, and this must stop!

In order to deal fairly with these kinds of crimes, past and present, it's appropriate that some kind of reconciliation be made, between the People who have lost their Lands, and their dominating systems.

We could deal with those injustices, by drawing up a Constitution that protects the Concerns of not only Native peoples, but all Peoples - a Global Agreement that can Protect the Land and the Environment against further abuse.

We could have two Constitutions in every Land - one for the Democratic process (which we already have) and a second (global) one for the protection of the Earth and it’s living environments. In this way both ideological modes could find a political balance.

Such an agreement will need to be enforced globally, because governments throughout the world are indirectly supporting the destruction of the world's resource base.

I’d like to suggest that a Global Council of Aboriginal Chiefs be set up to become the trustees of this second constitution ~ What has been lost must now be regained in principle.

Only in this way will the global dilemma between Native Peoples and their intruders be resolved.

If such an ‘agreement’ can bring the world together to help clean up the environment, it will inevitably benefit everyone. If it can reconcile people with the Land, it will serve an important role in creating healthy lifestyles, and in that sense could eventually lessen our social costs.

The Earth would be better protected, because development could be held in check. Governments would no longer hold jurisdiction over the Land and our resources - People would have control. Such restructuring could occur once a consensus amongst all Nations is reached.

There is conclusive proof that the old order is reaching the end of its effectiveness. Ideological failure is resulting in many parts of the world. Peoples are suffering because there are no safeguards in place for the Land and our resources.

Our degree of global suffering is directly proportional to the efforts by governments to suppress and maintain control over their interests - and to that degree, we shall all suffer.

The current economy is substantial enough to provide everyone with plenty of food and housing. But that isn't happening. The existing elite are digging in. They aren't going to give up the economic superiority they hold in the world, without a fight.

Conditions in the world are going to continue to deteriorate, as long as governments and corporations continue to maintain control over the Land and our resources. I doubt whether this current trend can be stopped without further suffering. Global conditions will make the possibility of a return to the good times impossible. Conditions at home will continue to deteriorate, because conditions in the world are demanding solutions which governments are not willing to compromise.

The process of industrialization has benefited many, but the majority of peoples throughout the world, have been harmed because of it.

Economic freedom is only available to the elite of the world, while poverty, suffering, and disease continue to be the burden of most peoples throughout the world.

Economic expansion came as a result of colonialism. Economic expansion continues to benefit those who take, while those who give are literally giving their lives away.

History cannot become fulfilled until those Injustices are dealt with!

One of humanities greatest injustices is what we have done to our Earth. A great many people have been displaced and removed from their Land because someone else had his eye on their resources. The Earth is suffering because the keepers of the Land are under the control of the reapers.

Clearly, a New Order requires that protective measures be installed in all Nations now occupied by “economic apartheid” - to ensure that all Peoples benefit from the resources which rightfully belong to them. A New Order requires above all else, that the sanctity of the Earth and its People be Protected.