Pay up or leave

[CANADIEN]

Not exactly true. In most cases treaties wee negotiated because the British (and Canada) wanted access to land that the Royal Proclamation 1763 said they couldn't take without a process. Sure many nations were swindled but not true in the case of Six Nations.

In their case the Haldimand Proclamation the other settlements of Six Nations in Ontario was the result of a treaty during the American Revolution. Essentially in this case the British knew they needed the Mohawks on their side and so they gave away not only land but resources and any control (like taxation or law) over Six Nations people.

To add my two cents, the legal premise of whose homeland this is need only go back as far as the Royal Proclamation 1763 which defined all lands as "Indian Lands" outside of existing British colonies. Further, through the Quebec Act 1774 they clarified that jurisdiction over French settlements were also under British sovereignty. However, it is a myth that the British ever took control of land - especially land in Ontario where some had settled. Instead, even today the lands remain the territory of Six Nations, with the British (and now Canada) only having legal authority over the people.

You should note that anything to do with land - property law, development laws etc - deal only with uses and authority, in other words people issues. Land itself has no rights, save and except the Crown has assumed rights by way of treaty over certain lands. Canada is a Crown corporation and has no right to land, or use of land. They were given authority over people and to this day only govern Canadians' use of land and their behavior in society. They were not given authority (nor under international law can authority over another nation be assumed) over First Nations. Thus the Indian Act (you should read it some time) merely defines the government's interaction with First Nations and not the authority over them. The Cartwright Treaty clearly defines the relationship that the Crown and First Nations defined for the application of law.

Canada is not a corporation, it is a country. The Crown is not a corporation, it is the embodiement of Canada as a country. Like it or not, all land not privately owned, or owned by a First Nation, belongs to the Crown. Like it or not, canadian laws apply to Aboriginals.

Interesting btw that you come again with the absurd notion that all land in Ontario belongs to the Six Nations. Even if the notion that all land belongs to the first Nations had any merit (and it does not), one can only laugh at the idea that let's say communities along the shores of Hudson Bay belong or have in the past belonged to the Six Nations, or were subject to their authority. Better luck next time with your attempt at rewriting history.

[CANADIEN]

Like sanity is not yours.

[Riverwind]

Now the comparison is with Apartheid era South Africa. What's next, Nazi Germany?

Aboriginal groups have made it clear that they want a system where non-natives living on land they call their own should be compelled to pay taxes/rents to natives yet they will have no say in the native government that sets those rents.

There is absolutely NO difference between aparthied and what these groups are demanding yet many people like yourself ignore this and lecture people on how the natives are entitled to be fuedal lords and non-natives are nothing more than serfs because their ancestors arrived 10,000 years ago instead of 200 years ago.

There will be no resolution of native issues until there is a general acceptance in the native community that certain terms of treaties fundementally inconsistent with democratic ideals and will never be accepted by the majority of Canadians. Tax exemptions and self-government that prohibits non-natives from participating are the two most egregious issues.

[Machjo]

If a foreigner lives on Canadian soil, he still pays Canadian taxes and does not get the vote. What's the difference?

[Machjo]

And it's not about democracy, but an agreement between two peoples. Americans don't get to vote in Canadian elections either, nothing to do with democracy.

[Smallc]

Americans and foreiginers aren't Canadians. Aboriginal people in Canada are for the most part.

[CANADIEN]

Aboriginal groups have made it clear that they want a system where non-natives living on land they call their own should be compelled to pay taxes/rents to natives yet they will have no say in the native government that sets those rents.

The owner of the land is the owner of the land, period.

It is evident that where non-Aborigiials have acquired in good faith land from the Crown are not responsible for any wrongdoings by the Crown. Compensation to First Nations should not, and I shall not include, extinction of individual non-Aboriginals' property rights.

There is absolutely NO difference between aparthied and what these groups are demanding yet many people like yourself ignore this and lecture people on how the natives are entitled to be fuedal lords and non-natives are nothing more than serfs because their ancestors arrived 10,000 years ago instead of 200 years ago.

As I said before, all that is missing now is a reference to Nazi Germany. As for your gross misrepresentation of my opinion, here it is, for the fourth time:

Like it or not, this is 2009. which means that the descendants of the immigrants from Europe or elsewhere in the World are not going anywhere. This is our land too, and while justice and simple common sense demands respect for the historical rights of the descendants of the first inhabitants, the notion that non-Aboriginal Canadians should consider themselves as perpetual renters or just leve is wrong-headed and, quite frankly, racist.

Clear enough?

Edited August 14, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

And it's not about democracy, but an agreement between two peoples. Americans don't get to vote in Canadian elections either, nothing to do with democracy.

Yiur argument is flawed in one major aspect. While the situation of Aboriginals is different from that of other Canadians, their relationship to the governments is not akin to that of Americans to Canadians. They are Canadians.

[CANADIEN]

Tax exemptions and self-government that prohibits non-natives from participating are the two most egregious issues.

I was wondering when the other bit of non-sense would come.

Of course, First Nations can enjoy self-government, as long as it is not self-government, right? they can decide on how to best preserve their culture and change it6 to fit today's world, as long as the decision does not belong to them. they can control their own school, their own economic development, their owen health system only as long as they do not control it.

As land owners, First Nations communities can have as much control on its use as a non-Aobriginal individual or corporation have on the land they own, as long as they have less control.

But all that, of course, is fairness, right?

[M.Dancer]

I was wondering when the other bit of non-sense would come.

Of course, First Nations can enjoy self-government, as long as it is not self-government, right?

The most workable transformation would see all the reserves incorperate as municipalities which would give them a revenue stream of their own design as wellas access to federal and provincial funds. Then they can allocate what ever they wish to promote what ever they want just like any other municipality.

I don't see it happening though cause the federal gravey train is too long and lucrative to give up.

[Smallc]

I think you're right Dancer, but I think that eventually it will happen, at least for some reserves. It is already beginning to some extent in BC.

[Riverwind]

The owner of the land is the owner of the land, period.

If they want government like powers over a territory in Canada (i.e. the ability to enforce laws) then they must allow participation of all Canadian residents in the government of that territory.

It is evident that where non-Aborigiials have acquired in good faith land from the Crown are not responsible for any wrongdoings by the Crown. Compensation to First Nations should not, and I shall not include, rcyinction of individual non-aborials' property rights.

Yet you would happily impose astronomical taxes on the property owners in order to pay 'fair market value' to native groups for land that has been sold to private individuals.

Clear enough?

No, because it is completely inconsistent with everything else you say. Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Machjo]

Americans and foreiginers aren't Canadians. Aboriginal people in Canada are for the most part.

Ignore this post.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Machjo

[Smallc]

In most cases, that's imposed citizenship.

That makes absolutely no sense. They are born here to people who are Canadians, they become Canadians. I guess my citizenship was imposed also.

[Machjo]

That makes absolutely no sense. They are born here to people who are Canadians, they become Canadians. I guess my citizenship was imposed also.

I remember talking to oen member of the AFN, and according to her, many fo them don't consider themselves Canadian except as a matter of practical necessity under the circumstances.

[Riverwind]

I remember talking to oen member of the AFN, and according to her, many fo them don't consider themselves Canadian except as a matter of practical necessity under the circumstances.

A yes. Canadian when it is convenient but not otherwise. Citizenship does not work that way. They are legally Canadian whether they like it or not.

[Smallc]

According to her....but that's certainly not my experience with aboriginals in this area, who proudly celebrate Canada Day.

[CANADIEN]

The most workable transformation would see all the reserves incorperate as municipalities which would give them a revenue stream of their own design as wellas access to federal and provincial funds. Then they can allocate what ever they wish to promote what ever they want just like any other municipality.

I don't see it happening though cause the federal gravey train is too long and lucrative to give up.

Considering that First Nations have been arguing for years for a larger level of autonomy, you will excuse me if I find your gravy train comment off the mark.

Incorporation of reserves would indeed, if well done, benefit First Nations and meet their needs for greater autonomy. Given them a status comparable to municipalities would be the wrong way to do it, for a number of reasons:

a - these are nations, not local communities; calling them municiplalities or hinting to powers similar to those of municipalities is a non-starter

b - nunicipalities are mere creatures of the provincial governments, and can be abolished or merged whenever the provincial legislature decides to do it; their powers as well can be changed without them having a say on it

c - municipalities often lack the type of powers that First Nations need to ensure their development, such as power over the education system, health services, cultural programs.

The situation of First Nations is unique, and calls for unique solutions.

[M.Dancer]

Considering that First Nations have been arguing for years for a larger level of autonomy, you will excuse me if I find your gravy train comment off the mark.

I wold say 9 billion is a pretty fat train. Wouldn't you agree?

Then add to that the welfare....

a - these are nations, not local communities; calling them municiplalities or hinting to powers similar to those of municipalities is a non-starter

Well, they are ethnicities anyway....calling them nations is just PC speak. I suppose I belong to the Gael nation....

b - nunicipalities are mere creatures of the provincial governments, and can be abolished or merged whenever the provincial legislature decides to do it; their powers as well can be changed without them having a say on it

That should give them the motivation to act responsibly for a change

c - municipalities often lack the type of powers that First Nations need to ensure their development, such as power over the education system, health services, cultural programs.

If Toronto can have an afro-centric school....fund pride week and caribana..then I think the natives could do likewise.

...Do natives really want a native controlled health sysytem?

[CANADIEN]

If they want government like powers over a territory in Canada (i.e. the ability to enforce laws) then they must allow participation of all Canadian residents in the government of that territory.

The law making and law enforcement capacity of the reserves, where they exist, do not extent beyond the borders of the reserves Thanks for bringing that strawman into the equation, though.

Yet you would happily impose astronomical taxes on the property owners in order to pay 'fair market value' to native groups for land that has been sold to private individuals.

Not happily, nope. But you will excuse me if I fail to accept your excuses for not dealing on this issue in less than a fair manner. I sell land, I expect to get a fair price for it, and usually I will. The government expropriate my property, same thing. Why should Aboriginals expect less?

You might have a point if you were arguing that the appropriate mode of compensation for land taken by the Crown without proper treaties was to providing the tools and resources needed for the development of Aboriginal communities. That you have little to say about that but rather raise straw men and ridiculous comparisons says a lot about your sense of fairness.

No, because it is completely inconsistent with everything else you say.

It is not. Don't be fooled because I "fail" to view Aboriginals as greedy, undemocratic racists and to adopt your distorted view of what fairness is.

[CANADIEN]

I wold say 9 billion is a pretty fat train. Wouldn't you agree?

Then add to that the welfare....

The issue is not the amount of many, but who it is invested. The current model, which take away responsibilities from Aboriginal communities, is a breeding round for corruption and waste. Yet calls from First Nations for increased autonomy and responsbilities are ignored or dismissed.

Well, they are ethnicities anyway....calling them nations is just PC speak. I suppose I belong to the Gael nation....

Calling them nations is a statement of facts.

That should give them the motivation to act responsibly for a change

Less we forget. They are treated like minors, put under tutellage, treated as if not intelligent enough to manage their own business. But it is their fault for not acting responsibly enough, right?

I expected that type of bigoted drivel on this thread. I did not expect it from you.

...Do natives really want a native controlled health sysytem?

The ultimate goal of the Health Secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations is control by First Nations of how health services are delivered to their community.

[Riverwind]

The law making and law enforcement capacity of the reserves, where they exist, do not extent beyond the borders of the reserves.

So? It does not change the fact that Canadian citizens should be entitled to participate in any government that has authority over the land where they reside within Canada.

Not happily, nope. But you will excuse me if I fail to accept your excuses for not dealing on this issue in less than a fair manner. I sell land, I expect to get a fair price for it, and usually I will. The government expropriate my property, same thing. Why should Aboriginals expect less?

Because no one who is alive today has any moral claim on lands that may have been used by long dead ancestors. The key element that you miss is the government has to right to tax all inheritances and that no one has an absolute right to receive all assets that may have been owned by their parents.

It is not. Don't be fooled because I "fail" to view Aboriginals as greedy, undemocratic racists and to adopt your distorted view of what fairness is.

"greedy, undemocratic racists" is an apt description of many aboriginal activists today. What is interesting is how you twist yourself in knots trying to deny that. Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

The issue is not the amount of many, but who it is invested.

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

Calling them nations is a statement of facts.

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

Less we forget. They are treated like minors, put under tutellage, treated as if not intelligent enough to manage their own business. But it is their fault for not acting responsibly enough, right?

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

I expected that type of bigoted drivel on this thread. I did not expect it from you.

Emote somewhere else then.

The ultimate goal of the Health Secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations is control by First Nations of how health services are delivered to their community.

Great, Their first goal should be funding it. I suggest they adopt the US model.

[M.Dancer]

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.

[benny]

At this point in time in Canada, the issue is front and centre: Our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that our governments have a duty to consult and accommodate the rights of Indigenous Peoples on all of their traditional land - ie, all of Canada.

For the Supreme Court, accommodating indigenous people can only mean implementing the Lockean proviso.

http://www.canadaka.net/forums/improve-can...iso-t30503.html