tango
-
Posts
1,641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tango
-
-
I am not in agreement with Tango and certainly do not think that "all of Canada" belongs to the first nations,
Aboriginal rights apply to all of Canada, but that is not outright ownership as we know it: More like a shared interest. 'A say in development and a share in revenues', subject to negotiation.
Aboriginal Title is ownership and applies to 'reserves' and to lands retrieved through 'land claims', etc.
but you should know that it doesn't take "technology" to reach the vast majority of the places on a given continent, with the exception of extremely technical mountain summits. All you need is to get up and walk, know how to live off the land along the way, and you can get just about anywhere on the same landmass.That is not to say that they did make it to "every corner" of Canada, or that even if they did at some point make it there that the land should belong to them, but it certainly would have been possible for natives to have visited just about everywhere in Canada throughout the thousands of years they were here.
Absolutely.
-
Do you believe only in nurture? It is called a thought experiment. Protected from what? Being challenged?
Protecting him from ending up in Guantanamo while still legally a child.
(OOPS!)
-
So is calling me a child killer is ok?? when you and i know both that i have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan or have anything to do with how terrorist's are handled ?...simply giving my opinion like everyone else on here!
child killer?? pretty damn low indeed!!
Well you did say this ...
Omar should have been taken out when they found him that would have saved all the trouble.....So, yes ... "child killer" is appropriate.
However, my observation has been that blustering cowards who talk like you are usually looking for someone else to do their dirty work for them.
-
The current law. The law can be changed if that is what the majority wants.
So how's that working for you?
Get back to me on your progress in rounding up "the majority".
-
Irrelevant. "Contact" isn't a law, and isn't mentioned in the constitution as having any meaning, if its mentioned at all. The Proclamation of 1763 (regarded as the "Indian Magna Carta"), however, is a part of the constitution, and it says FNs don't have the right to all of Canada.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. I defer to the SCC.
Here's a description:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC815558
Proof of Aboriginal Rights
For rights other than aboriginal title, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that claimants must demonstrate that the right was integral to their distinctive aboriginal societies and exercised at the time of first contact with Europeans. While these may be now exercised in a modern way, practices that arose from European influence are not protected. This paradox is often expressed in relation to commercial trade in furs or fish, which the courts have seen as the product of European contact rather than integral to aboriginal societies* prior to contact. Fishing for food, community or ceremonial purposes is, however, a protected aboriginal right and may be exercised in a modern way with modern fishing gear.
In order to prove an aboriginal title to traditional lands, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the important Delgamuukw case (1997) that such claims to title had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined aboriginal society as of the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory. In the same case, the Court ruled that the oral histories of the aboriginal peoples were to be accepted as evidence proving historic use and occupation.
* commercial rights are being challenged, as Indigenous Peoples did engage in trade.
edited to add link
-
Wikipedia? Sorry, I consider that a biased, politically correct source. It is often written by amateurs, and edited by a few other amateurs who are very politically correct in their thinking.
Anyhow, if you want to equate some physician from the 14th century postulating a theory with common knowledge across Europe in the 1500's, then that's your privilege.
Myself, that just doesn't seem logical. I mean, wasn't the printing press invented in 1440? It took another 100 years before we saw millions of books in print. After the bible and some notable fiction, how many books do you think mentioned the musings of that physician of yours?
Pasteur is generally credited with being the first to postulate the modern theory of germs and disease. He was born in 1822. Even during the American Civil War doctors and surgeons made no attempt to use antiseptics. They prided themselves on never washing their operating clothing, proudly bearing the blood stains! I guess they were too ignorant, never having read Arabic.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to change my mind, but not on such evidence or argument.
Go research it yourself (for a change) and bring evidence. Your opinions aren't worth a plugged nickel to me!
Alternatively, just continue in your rose-coloured eurocentric illusions. Makes absolutely no difference to me.
-
That would be TrueMetis, actually. My apologies. You wouldn't think something so daft...would you??
Something like ...
Plus you're the one also claiming it was consciously orchestrated by Europeans.Yes, I believe that because
1) The Pope ordered it.
2) There was no such thing as a war crime then, and
3) I understand the King of England got into the act too, claiming "divine right".
Go read the Doctrines of Discovery. The orders are there.
-
Your response is a non sequitor. I guess that means you are out of sloagns.
You can't prove that at contact the indians were using the nation now known as Canada nor can you prove there was any intent to commit genocideand that it can be proven that the lands that are indian are indian by royal proclamation and that indians committing genocide was s.o.p
If you think that was a non sequiter, I rest my case about your intellectual capacity.
I don't have to prove it. The Supreme Court accepts it and I respect the law.
-
I know. Hence I showed you the law that states what land First Nations have rights to. It certainly doesn't say they have right to all of Canada. The Crown does.
That's as of 1763, not 'contact'.
-
Nonsense. International courts have no authority in Canada outside of Canadian law (i.e. the Canadian government passes a law that ratifies a treaty which means Canadian courts will enforce the treaty terms).
The SCC is the ultimate judicial authority in Canada and cannot be overrulled by anyone other than the voters who have the power to change the constitution.
Point being ... Canada is subject to international law, and the SCC honours that. Also, there are mechanisms that can be used to bring pressure on Canada to uphold its international commitments.
The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings).
However, my point was that the Supreme Court of Canada does honour Aboriginal rights ... in law.
Whether you like it or not.
-
The big question, given that the indians had no wheel, no horse and limited mobility in general outside of the rivers....and the lands claimed by the HBC arfe outside of any indian land claim...how much land was actually used with any frequency at the "time of contact"....the traditiianl terrirtory isn't anywhere near "all of canada".
And on top of that, land stolen by indians from other indians cannot in any way be counted as we all ready now the right of conquest is null and void.
Ya, and Europeans ran around shitting in the streets and carrying heads on pikes!
Obviously you have a lot of reading to do to catch up with the modern era.
You're so ignorant and racist you are not worth trying to educate.
-
So here they are stating that their only lifeline to get out of their crisis is the wealth being generated by this mining operation, and yet they want to make it more difficult and less likely for companies to invest in other such operations?
Their approach is self-defeating.
How can it be? Up until now they've got NOTHING from toxic operations on their land. It can only get better.
How is the wealth supposed to be "distributed"? This is not a communist state. The company pays the people who work there and invests in infrastructure and facilities at its work sites. Profits are used to expand the company's operations and to pay dividends for the shareholders.If this operation is "near the community" in question, then most likely members of that community have the opportunity to be employed in this mining operation. If the company is employing the people there and paying them reasonable wages for the types of work they are doing, then it has done its part, and the rest is up to the community to figure out how to deal with their crises. If the community is a municipality and the mining site within its jurisdiction, then they can also collect taxes.
Those are the things they are negotiating, but they are entitled to some form of royalties/dividends as well - It is their land, their diamonds, their investment.
If you don't agree ... take it to the Supreme Court. (You'll lose.)
-
It's a real shame there are communities that are so bankrupt of intellectual capital they cannot look after themselves without relying on extortion or welfare. If it wasn't for the Great White Father to take cafe of them....
It's a real shame that you are so bankrupt of intellectual capacity you are only capable of ignorant racial slurs.
I think you have a better life coming ... as a dancing pig ... and we get to throw slop at YOU!
-
What spawned modern terrorism was not relgion - what spawned it was one set of prosperous and spoiled people - starving the hell out of another group. Suddenly the hungry man stands up and demands food - suddenly he is a terrorist. This all started because of American foreign policy - a brutal policy that has been in place for 75 years - one of usery - cruelty - elitism - greed - dominance and spiritual blindness - when Madame Albright commented on the effects of sanctions against Iraq in the early days - when it was reported that about 30 thousand Iraq children died because of the blockade of drugs needed to sustain good health....and she said this ---"it was worth it" - no wonder they seek to kill this type of freak and all they represent. Khdar - is not a terrorist - The f***ing bank that sends off credit cards to our youth...and enslaving them in debt for a life time - that's terrible - that is terrorism..how come no one is pissed off at these slave masters?
Well said!
Unequal distribution of wealth ... and food ... absolutely.
Corporate rule ... the purpose of which is to funnel the wealth of the many into the pockets of the greedy few.
That's what causes wars and terrorism. Is it "worth it"?
Thanks oleg!
-
Give me a break........hungary man wanting food???? tell me you don t believe that nonsense!!
these animals are religious fanatics who want to impose their evil views on others..and torture and kill all those who oppose, these idiots are the same caliber as the Nazi's and are the same threat as well, the only difference between the Nazi's and Islamic terrorist's is the Nazi's fought in uniform and as men ....the Islamics are cowards who hide behind women and children to accomplish their gains
What a good corporate slave you are, wulf! That's just what they want you to think.
Good puppy! go get your bone and lay down now.
-
The other side of the story ... coming to Toronto tomorrow:
Attawapiskat protesting at DeBeers office
By tbnewswatch staff
The Attawapiskat First Nation is pressing for a better deal from the DeBeers diamond mine near that community on the Jame Bay coast.
About 50 band members travelled to Toronto to stage a protest Wednesday outside the DeBeers Canada Office.
Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Hall said the wealth generated at the mines is not being distributed fairly.
more ...
http://www.tbnewswatch.com/News/?cid=63731
A remote fly in community, Attawapiskat is confronted with significant
challenges, which it cannot remedy for lack of funding. These include an acute
housing shortage, overcrowding, toxic contamination of its school and homes,
and other public health and safety issues such as the failed sewage system
which is backing up and requiring the mass evacuation of residents. The
community is deeply concerned that only a fair and equitable distribution of
wealth from the commercial mining activities in its traditional territory will
permit it to address the crisis management demanded by its inadequate
educational, public health, and physical infrastructure systems.
more ...
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...9/19/c6187.html
As I recall, this is the community that had to close its school due to fuel contamination, and Indian Affairs refused to help.
Ah yes, here it is ...
-
My point is: your claim is wrong. Aboriginals do not have land rights on all of Canada; they have land rights where the Crown says they do.
The duty to uphold the honour of the Crown resides in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Aboriginal rights exist where law and the Supreme Court say they do, and that's 'traditional territory' - all land the Nation occupied and used at the time of 'contact'.
The Supreme Court also refers to international law in its decisions. Otherwise, the decisions could be appealed to the international courts, and they still can of course, but the SCC tries to minimize that by addressing the law appropriately.
I am not talking about outright ownership as we understand it - that's Aboriginal Title.
Aboriginal Rights, however, give rise to the duty of the Crown to accommodate those rights in all proposed development on all traditional territory.
-
I'm not sure what your point is, but the duty of the Crown to accommodate Aboriginal rights applies to all traditional Indigenous land - ie, all the land they occupied or used at the time of contact.
That is all of Canada.
-
Tango, if you declare yourself a sovereign nation how is it confrontational for other countries to set up borders and border guards?
I genuinely cannot understand this point and would appreciate your answer. If this is not a case of having your cake and eating it too then just what is it?
Nations of people with broad rights on land all across Canada.
Read back a few posts.
I get tired of repeating myself for you lazy non-readers.
-
I suggest that running around screaming "genocide" when no such thing occurred is not going to win many supporters.
I didn't start the thread.
Show me "screaming".
Never mind. Obviously you have nothing left but insults to try to make your case.
How's that working for you?
-
You're the one claiming variola wasn't the #1 killer of Native American population.
No, I just said whatever diseases were available.
Plus you're the one also claiming it was consciously orchestrated by Europeans. Both which are right out in the looney zone.And your evidence is ... ???
-
We have a strong feeling that it wasn't about lacking information: The Warden poohbah, for example, intentionally spreads misinformation. He also evaded Council to get the injunction to arrest the protesters.
No, there's much more going on here than a lack of knowledge ...
However, hopefully not too many councillors are in on it. We only need a few more to vote for a moratorium until after the next municipal election. It's looking good!
-
sooo ... how was the seal meat, benny?
-
Tango, it has already been pointed out that you and others are claiming genocide by Europeans against aboriginals by using infected blankets.
This would have been LONG before anyone knew what germs were or that blankets even could be infected!
Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]
"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
This is why some of us are distrustful of oral histories.Considering that those Europeans were as ignorant as anyone else about germs and germ theory, it is far more likely that they simply made a gift of leftover blankets, not realizing the consequences.
After all, they no doubt used the same blankets themselves! They of course would have had the benefit of some immunity from growing up in an infected environment. The natives would have had no such antibodies in their blood and would have been far more vulnerable.
We should also keep in mind that it was those same Europeans that eventually DID discover the germ theory of disease and virtually all the cures discovered to date!
Frankly, I'm distrustful of anything you say, Bill. You don't even google or wiki for basic information first.
Of course that gives me the job of doing it for you to prove you wrong, but actually ... that's getting boring.
So ... DoP ... I don't question your sanity, but I do also question your knowledge along with Bill's. Lack of knowledge is no sin, but failing to remedy it before putting mouth in gear is a sin of arrogance and laziness, imo.
You don't think, perhaps, that after the first village died from the blankets, they might clue in? Afterall, they had 100 years clear of settlers and reporters to "vanquish" the natives, following the orders of the Pope.
Why do we discuss Canada's attempted cultural genocide as it's
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
As a non-Indigenous Canadian, right now I think it's working more fairly than ever in the past, and I'm relieved because it's a pretty disgusting history we have in our treatment of Indigenous peoples to date: Very difficult to be proud of Canada.
Even the provincial courts now know they have to consider Aboriginal rights.
The Mining Act is being revised to accommodate Aboriginal rights.
The province (ON) is developing a policy on 'duty to accommodate Aboriginal rights.
etc etc
Much better than in the past, though there are still plenty of challenges before we can ever claim to really respect the law and the rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada.
Federal negotiations are still a sewer, though.