Pay up or leave

[CANADIEN]

No the issue is how much money. Let them raise it themselves.

And of course, the moment they start rasing money for themselves by let's say, taxing property on the reserves, the governments will be quick to point out that its laws forbid individual property ownership on reserves.

It is as much an artificial construct as any could be. Allthat is required is that we accept the artificial construct. I don't.

Won't change facts.

Nonsense. They act irresponibly because of a lack of oversight or accountability.

Ever read the Indian act? Under it, Band Councils can hardly do anything without the consent of the federal government. Ten year olds are subjected to less oversight and less accountability on how they spend their weekly allowance.

The First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act of 2005 is a step in the right direction, if only because it assumes that First Nations are able to manage their own affairs.

Edited August 14, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

It amazes me that on one hand, a two tier healthcare system can be looked upon as being unfair but a syetem that creates a two tiered canadian is perfectly just.

You tell us. After all, your criticism of the two-tiered system we have in this country consists of pointing at the people treated as second class citizens and saying "it's their fault".

Edited August 14, 2009 by CANADIEN

[benny]

Nonsense. They act irresponibly because of a lack of oversight or accountability.

These words are part the ideology allowing Suncor and Syncrude to pollute the World.

[tango]

Interesting discussion again, but the same old one, some pure racism and some just ill-informed and some better informed. I was hoping we could move beyond "Siberia" to information and discussion of the situation as it stands today.

For those who didn't bother to inform themselves ... and whether you agree with it or not ... our legal relationship with Indigenous Peoples today is this:

'Traditional Aboriginal Territories' are those that each Nation inhabited or used at the time of 'contact' - some shared, some exclusive. The federal government generally knows what these territories are, has mapped them, with some irregularities and disagreements but nonetheless, acceptance of the principle of 'traditional territories'.

Sec 35 of our Constitution 'recognizes and affirms' that Aboriginal Rights exist on all traditional Aboriginal territories. The nature of those continuing Aboriginal rights depends on the treaties applied to each.

All land in Canada, including lands occupied or used by non-natives by treaty, are nonetheless still subject to Aboriginal rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified:

http://www.lawsonlundell.com/Resources/New...nd-Accommodate2

Recent case law from the Supreme Court of Canada (Haida and Taku) has confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, and if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

Where disputes over land use arise, Aboriginal rights are asserted, and injunctions are sought to prevent Aboriginal protests, the Ontario Court of Appeal applied the 'duty to consult and accommodate' as follows:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2...008ONCA0534.pdf

[48]

Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: ...

The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.

In the case of the Ardoch/KI protests of mining developments, this decision "set aside" the sentences imposed as a result of the injunction, because the Crown had not consulted with them.

In Brantford, the court did not grant a permanent injunction against Six Nations, but instead ordered the City, Province and Six Nations to "consult, negotiate, accommodate and reconcile" their competing interests.

At dump site 41, Aboriginal rights have been asserted but protesters have nonetheless been arrested and charged and jailed due to an interim injunction, now being challenged in court based on the case law presented above.

This is the state of affairs today.

I realize that my initial post article was inflammatory and led to the same old claptrap about who should "leave".

However, I think we all understand that no one is leaving, and clearly there is a lot of interest in this topic.

It would seem appropriate, then, to inform ourselves of the current state of the law and to discuss the implications for us all.

I hope we can agree that there is some value at discussing these present realities.

Because the implication is this: Until the 'Crown' (province) has facilitated the negotiation of an agreement with the relevant Aboriginal communities to accommodate their rights and interests, no development can proceed if they object, anywhere in Canada.

The onus is clearly on the provinces, who approve all land uses, to ensure that the process includes the accommodation of Aboriginal rights prior to that approval.

And it really doesn't matter whether we agree or not: It is the law in Canada.

It is also, by the way, the only law available in Canada to fight against environmentally disastrous development.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....And it really doesn't matter whether we agree or not: It is the law in Canada.

It is also, by the way, the only law available in Canada to fight against environmentally disastrous development.

That's all very interesting, but you have confirmed your true motivation, having little to do with "Aboriginal Rights", their origin, or the unilateral decisions by the Crown in such matters.

[tango]

That's all very interesting, but you have confirmed your true motivation, having little to do with "Aboriginal Rights", their origin, or the unilateral decisions by the Crown in such matters.

And there's something wrong with wanting to preserve the land so it can sustain future generations?

I would think that's a value many of us share with Indigenous Peoples ...

... except those who value money over life itself, of course.

(And how stupid is that!?! )

Point being ... this is the current state of the law in Canada.

Love it or leave it eh!

(Oh ... right ... you don't live here anyway. )

Edited August 14, 2009 by tango

[bush_cheney2004]

And there's something wrong with wanting to preserve the land so it can sustain future generations?

It's not wrong, but it is just another choice among many possibilities for the public or private good. Would you be trumpeting "Aboriginal Rights" if a band wanted to open a casino-hotel megaplex or build an oil refinery?

I would think that's a value many of us share with Indigenous Peoples ...

... except those who value money over life itself, of course.

Again...you are stereotyping "Indigenous Peoples".....it is also very patronizing.

[CANADIEN]

Interesting discussion again, but the same old one, some pure racism and some just ill-informed and some better informed. I was hoping we could move beyond "Siberia" to information and discussion of the situation as it stands today.

For those who didn't bother to inform themselves ... and whether you agree with it or not ... our legal relationship with Indigenous Peoples today is this:

'Traditional Aboriginal Territories' are those that each Nation inhabited or used at the time of 'contact' - some shared, some exclusive. The federal government generally knows what these territories are, has mapped them, with some irregularities and disagreements but nonetheless, acceptance of the principle of 'traditional territories'.

Sec 35 of our Constitution 'recognizes and affirms' that Aboriginal Rights exist on all traditional Aboriginal territories. The nature of those continuing Aboriginal rights depends on the treaties applied to each.

All land in Canada, including lands occupied or used by non-natives by treaty, are nonetheless still subject to Aboriginal rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified:

http://www.lawsonlundell.com/Resources/New...nd-Accommodate2

Where disputes over land use arise, Aboriginal rights are asserted, and injunctions are sought to prevent Aboriginal protests, the Ontario Court of Appeal applied the 'duty to consult and accommodate' as follows:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2...008ONCA0534.pdf

In the case of the Ardoch/KI protests of mining developments, this decision "set aside" the sentences imposed as a result of the injunction, because the Crown had not consulted with them.

In Brantford, the court did not grant a permanent injunction against Six Nations, but instead ordered the City, Province and Six Nations to "consult, negotiate, accommodate and reconcile" their competing interests.

At dump site 41, Aboriginal rights have been asserted but protesters have nonetheless been arrested and charged and jailed due to an interim injunction, now being challenged in court based on the case law presented above.

This is the state of affairs today.

I realize that my initial post article was inflammatory and led to the same old claptrap about who should "leave".

However, I think we all understand that no one is leaving, and clearly there is a lot of interest in this topic.

It would seem appropriate, then, to inform ourselves of the current state of the law and to discuss the implications for us all.

I hope we can agree that there is some value at discussing these present realities.

Because the implication is this: Until the 'Crown' (province) has facilitated the negotiation of an agreement with the relevant Aboriginal communities to accommodate their rights and interests, no development can proceed if they object, anywhere in Canada.

The onus is clearly on the provinces, who approve all land uses, to ensure that the process includes the accommodation of Aboriginal rights prior to that approval.

And it really doesn't matter whether we agree or not: It is the law in Canada.

It is also, by the way, the only law available in Canada to fight against environmentally disastrous development.

One of the problems with the notions of aboriginal rights is how they are to be applied, or more exactly how do they apply today.

For example, many treaties regonized hunting and fishing rights on areas larger than the reserves, but most certainly that does not imply that an Aboriginal hunter can just go into my backyard and shoot rabbit (yes, I am exaggerating on purpose here). Similarly, the notion that development (or environmental destruction, as some may describe it) cannot proceed on disputed land unless there is an agreemnt is a false one - - it is disputed, after all.

As well, the requirement for meaningful consultation with affected First Nations is exactly that, a requirement for meaning ful consultation. This is not an unconditional right of veto. Like everything else, Abogirinal rights are limited by the common interests of all.

Finally, I find the idea that there is no land ownership to be wrong in its very premice. We are governed by a common law system (ok, civil law in quebec, but it does not treat land ownership that differently) under which land can be owned. Aborignal land titles proceed from a different view of the relationship between land and man, and we are (at last) doing reasonable efforts to accommodate it. But it is still whtin the frame of our law system(s).

[bush_cheney2004]

Finally, I find the idea that there is no land ownership to be wrong in its very premice. We are governed by a common law system (ok, civil law in quebec, but it does not treat land ownership that differently) under which land can be owned. Aborignal land titles proceed from a different view of the relationship between land and man, and we are (at last) doing reasonable efforts to accommodate it. But it is still whtin the frame of our law system(s).

Only under the weight and force of government.....the "aboriginals" have never been treated as equal, sovereign players or "owners".

The very idea of land ownership is at the core of the matter (and power), so there is no way the Crown can ever move to a different paridigm. Torrens title came out of the hopelessly tangled common law practices of old, further solidifying Crown power.

[CANADIEN]

Only under the weight and force of government.....the "aboriginals" have never been treated as equal, sovereign players or "owners".

On that one, I agree with you most of the way. No denying we are changing the relationship though. Can only be good.

[bush_cheney2004]

On that one, I agree with you most of the way. No denying we are changing the relationship though. Can only be good.

Right...it is the courts that will ultimately protect "aboriginal" interests (to a fault), because the courts must protect treaty rights against the overwelming power of the Crown, as imperfect such complicity involves. Buying (and selling) native land rights (not ownership) is another continuance of the corruption.

[tango]

One of the problems with the notions of aboriginal rights is how they are to be applied, or more exactly how do they apply today.

For example, many treaties regonized hunting and fishing rights on areas larger than the reserves, but most certainly that does not imply that an Aboriginal hunter can just go into my backyard and shoot rabbit (yes, I am exaggerating on purpose here). Similarly, the notion that development (or environmental destruction, as some may describe it) cannot proceed on disputed land unless there is an agreemnt is a false one - - it is disputed, after all.

As well, the requirement for meaningful consultation with affected First Nations is exactly that, a requirement for meaning ful consultation. This is not an unconditional right of veto. Like everything else, Abogirinal rights are limited by the common interests of all.

I posted the information so you can see for yourself how Aboriginal rights are being applied today. Read it over again for clarification. It is the Supreme Court that is responsible for clarifying how Aboriginal rights are to be applied today, and it has done so and continues to do so.

Brantford, and dump site 41 are the current focuses in Ontario, now in front of the courts. And the Supreme Court has said that injunctions cannot be granted against Aboriginal protests until there is an agreement in place with them about land use.

And yes, the agreements will consider the common and competing interests of all parties. Again, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of whether the agreements are adequate.

Finally, I find the idea that there is no land ownership to be wrong in its very premice. We are governed by a common law system (ok, civil law in quebec, but it does not treat land ownership that differently) under which land can be owned. Aborignal land titles proceed from a different view of the relationship between land and man, and we are (at last) doing reasonable efforts to accommodate it. But it is still whtin the frame of our law system(s).

I never said there is no "land ownership". However, even with a property title, there are limitations on one's use of the land: Mineral rights on your land, for example, generally remain with the Crown. Planning and by laws determine the uses of your land. etc.

And the Constitution (via the Supreme Court) now limits the development of land until agreements accommodating the rights of Indigenous Peoples are in place. This is a relatively new concept in Canadian law, and may people are not aware of it. That's my reason for raising it here for information and discussion.

[tango]

Right...it is the courts that will ultimately protect "aboriginal" interests (to a fault),

Speak for your own courts please. Generalized insults against ours are not acceptable.

because the courts must protect treaty rights against the overwelming power of the Crown, as imperfect such complicity involves. Buying (and selling) native land rights (not ownership) is another continuance of the corruption.

hunh???

[Craig1]

It all boils down to protective Native Culture and their way of life of a self sufficient lifestyle we are doing a awfull job in doing that I have seen first hand my Meti friends hunting grounds being destroyed by big oil they are even finding traces of mercury and cyanide in the Animals.

how would you like it if I come and start dumping antifreeze in your tomato garden I'm pretty sure I'd be jailed or fined but when it comes to doing this to a Native its all fine and dandy.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Craig1

[Riverwind]

That's all very interesting, but you have confirmed your true motivation, having little to do with "Aboriginal Rights", their origin, or the unilateral decisions by the Crown in such matters.

Reminds me of the anti-logging activists who used native rights as pretext to stop logging who are now appalled that those natives now plan to log those trees for their own benefit.

[tango]

It all boils down to protective Native Culture and their way of life of a self sufficient lifestyle we are doing a awfull job in doing that I have seen first hand my Meti friends hunting grounds being destroyed by big oil they are even finding traces of mercury and cyanide in the Animals.

how would you like it if I come and start dumping antifreeze in your tomato garden I'm pretty sure I'd be jailed or fined but when it comes to doing this to a Native its all fine and dandy.

I agree, craig. It's appalling the way Indigenous lands have been contaminated. And we are now finding out just what the health effects are for them too. However, these things also apply to us as unaccountaqble companies have contaminated our cities, towns, villages and rural areas too, including the water supplies, ground and air.

There are many concerns that we have in common with Indigenous people.

[Topaz]

How would you guys feel if the First Nation has a political party like the Bloc and represented themselves in the Commons? I think it would be rather enjoyable watching how the Tories and the Liberals react to statements of how they have treated the First Nation.

[benny]

How would you guys feel if the First Nation has a political party like the Bloc and represented themselves in the Commons? I think it would be rather enjoyable watching how the Tories and the Liberals react to statements of how they have treated the First Nation.

You would rapidly see that "first come, first served" is a bogus principle.

[tango]

How would you guys feel if the First Nation has a political party like the Bloc and represented themselves in the Commons? I think it would be rather enjoyable watching how the Tories and the Liberals react to statements of how they have treated the First Nation.

I think that is just getting started, and that's one part of a solution.

http://www.fpnpoc.ca/

However, there are many Indigenous people who want nothing to do with our government that has oppressed them.

[benny]

I think that is just getting started, and that's one part of a solution.

Like if the Bloc has a solution!

[tango]

dp

Edited August 14, 2009 by tango

[Wild Bill]

How would you guys feel if the First Nation has a political party like the Bloc and represented themselves in the Commons? I think it would be rather enjoyable watching how the Tories and the Liberals react to statements of how they have treated the First Nation.

And how is this even remotely possible?

Reserves are NOT ridings! According to the Six Nations protesters their reserve is a sovereign country. This means they have as much right to vote in a Canadian election as Nairobi.

If they choose to consider themselves Canadian they can vote within their own riding. However, their numbers will always be too small for them to elect their own party to have an MP to represent that riding. What are the chances that they could get enough non-natives to vote along with them for a First Nations party? About zero! Certainly, zero in Caledonia!

Even assuming that by some miracle they get an MP elected. Now they need 11 more to form a recognized party. Whoopee crap! Now they have as much power as the NDP, which is zilch!

As my dear old Nova Scotian grandfather used to say, "If your granny had wheels she wouldn't bump her ass when she hopped!"

Something like that, anyhow!

[Moonbox]

One word. Treaties. Now, you are not suggesting the Government reneges on its word, right?

It wasn't my word, nor was it your word. It was the word of previous governments who knew nothing about the realities of today.

When you get down to it, the Aboriginal Ministry is a farce. It's more a welfare ministry than anything else. It's not like the Aboriginals are largely happy with the situation there and throwing more money at them isn't going to fix it either. If the people there have no livelihoods they get bored and invariably the money will be spent on drugs and alcohol etc.

[benny]

It wasn't my word, nor was it your word. It was the word of previous governments who knew nothing about the realities of today.

If someone can believe today in your words, it is because your ancestors have made and respected promises/treaties.

[Griz]

Why do I picture you with a cup of tea in your hand, just about to put it to your mouth, giving me a dumb look while saying " Spare us the racism and the stupidity, will you?"

Spare us the racism and the stupidity, will you?