The Need for Legal Empowerment

The Haudenosaunee assertions that they cannot surrender sovereignty is the same with all genuine national sovereignty. A nation must protect, preserve and perfect itself, and it the responsibility of other nations to assist.

"Colonial rule" has absolutely no legal basis. The only justification that the British Crown can claim would be that of protectorate, which would be of temporary nature.

However, if a nation should forget its own history and lose its identity, and then by peaceful agreement comply with a protectorate Sovereign then adverse possession will have been acquired by the protectorate; which of course is the process being attempted.

What is unfortunate is that without adequate and appropriate education of the facts most people in Canada, not being able to exercise free, prior and informed consent,are not aware of the magnitude of the situation and the inherent potential for serious violations of human rights within an unmitigated globalization arena if the situation is not effectively remedied.

But without the much needed institutional changes at the UN acceptance into the "club" as it currently exists would just equate another layer of entrapment.

What is most needed is the appropriate institutional development, reflective of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the development of clear, concise, repeatable procedures for legitimately identifying and re-establishing the Indigenous Peoples and their institutions in contemporary forms that would actually strengthen the human rights protections of all the people dependent on those territories, in ways that are complimentary and cooperative, but without compromising responsible land title systems.

Would like to comment on the foundational terms of asserting sovereignty, in that in relation to your nation the Crown has zero sovereign jurisdiction anywhere within Algonquin territories, collectively & inclusively, that is the legal fact that they have been trying to 'assert' their way around since they've been coming here.
With this knowledge, which is of irrefutable legal certainty in interpretations of international law I can assure you, it follows that for the UN to be able to claim obeisance to its internationally agreed instruments for recognizing members (in the UN 'club', as one could describe it, perhaps?) it must be ready, willing and able and to demonstrate an open door policy of inviting your nation as a full standing =voting member, while, as one examines the UN's stated concerns regarding the societal ill-effects of colonialism, the Crown, in relation to your nation's case being in the guise of 'Canada' should have been shown the club door already.

That is to clearly frame the legal context, as it actually is in practice.

Now, more significantly from my perspective is the societal legal framework which indigenous nations hold-possess-retain-assert by our inherent collective obligations within the sovereign domain of our laws, as our indigenous governing laws, to maintain the health & social well being of our distinct societies in perpetuity-- yes this may differ amongst different indigenous nations and I must clarify that what I am about to lay out has to do with the laws inherited by all Haudenosaunee and so therefore may be somewhat or even quite different for your nations?-- That we can never surrender any of our legal sovereignty unto any other entity, it is clearly against our law, as we understand our obligations both spiritually as well as materially to honor our ancestors and to ensure the inheritance which we owe to OUR future generations. This makes it fully-absolutely and in every conceivable way a clear impossibility that 'colonial rule' has ever or ever could have any legal validity within our respective territories.