Pay up or leave

[g_bambino]

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...

Why do I picture you with your foot in your hand, just about to put it into your mouth, giving me a dumb look?

[CANADIEN]

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.

The two keys elements you wilfully neglect are that the claims are made by First NATIONS, and therefore are not estinguished because those who were alive when the cliams were initiated are now dead, and we are talking about payments, not inheritences.

"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.

Let's not get confused here. The distortion of the true meaning of democracy is yours. The ignorant at best, greedy and borderline racist "let's find any and all ays of scr&wing the Injuns once again" is yours.

[CANADIEN]

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.[///quote]

It was the word of the Government of Canada. As so aptly put by the Supreme Court, honour still binds the Government.

This si not to sat that we cannpt, and should not sit down and renegociate the terms of the partnership. But to say "we no longer like some of the terms, so we will unilaterally change whatever does not fit our needs, but whatever you don't like stays" whould be dishonourable. To hide behind the pathetic excuse that "those who made that promise are now dead" would make it even worse.

[tango]

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.

Oh come on Riv, sharpen your fingernails and climb out of the 20th century!

If you are not about the environment these days, you're not about anything!

Nobody said all Aboriginal people defend the land. The ones the government likes and bestows it 'goodness' upon have learned to play the game 'our' way. But unfortunately, 'our' destructive ways are now just that - destructive and unsustainable.

Edited August 15, 2009 by tango

[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.

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!

Anybody can start a political party, Bill, and run candidates anywhere. Don't forget the large population of native people in the cities. Toronto is the largest 'reserve' in Canada.

Caledonia? Who cares!

[charter.rights]

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.

No it isn't a country. You are subscribing to myths yet again

The British North American Act was a creation of the British Parliament. It was not an act of self-determination. When the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, permission was required by the then Queen of Great Britain, who is also now the Queen of Canada - the one who retains sovereignty over all of Canada and IS "the Crown" according to all Canadian law (which BTW is sanctioned by that very same Crown). Her Majesty is still the head of the military, the courts, the police, and the government. No law can be created or applied without Her consent.

The present Queen has delegated Her duties to others, to act within Canada for the best interests of Her Loyal Subjects, Canadians. However, this would not preclude another sovereign at a later date from taking direct control of Canada, although we can well imagine the repercussions of such an act.

Not withstanding, all Crown land legally sits upon aboriginal land. While treaties have intended to convey rights to the Crown to use certain lands in the interest of Her Majesty's Loyal Subjects, it does not give the corporation of Canada those rights, but instead as we have seen from the rulings of the Supreme Court, it places responsibilities on the corporation of Canada to give attention to existing aboriginal rights, and the effect of developing land within that obligation. Canada has no absolute right over land or resources but is obligated to share with First Nations any benefit in treaty lands. As well it is under a legal obligation as a trustee to protect aboriginal interests and cannot convey aboriginal land, permit the use of treaty land or authorize the taxation of native persons. In all representations the Crown is always in the forefront. As well it is the Crown through Her Majesty's Courts that demand that Canada adhere to the law prescribed for it by the Queen - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You must learn to read and learn Canadien before you open mouth. I have cited all the legal documents which clearly state that all of southern Ontario is still the territory of Six Nations. You must either have been sleeping in class, or are letting your hate get in your way. The fact that Six Nations has let us use the land neither implies that we have jurisdiction over it (or them) or that we have taken it from them. According to our law they must be consulted for any development, charge, extraction or allotment and we must recognize their issues, accommodate them and reconcile with their concerns. That is the law. You don't have to agree with it but you do have to accept it.

While it is true that the SCoC has stated that the requirement for consultation does not necessarily give First Nations veto authority, it does convey the responsibility to enter into negotiations in good faith, reconcile their concerns and accommodate changes they negotiate. It does not give any level of government veto authority over First Nations' interests, nor does it permit governments to allow development while negotiations are taking place. The SCoC order was directed at us through our corporate government - not First Nations - and it is our obligation to accept their pivotal role in all of our developments. Their law in many cases requires them to protect the next 7 generations from the harm we collectively might create today, and to be assured that the next 7 generations come into this world with the same security, freedom, health and welfare that the previous 7 generations left for them. It isn't a hard concept to follow at all. It is simply removing personal profit from all transactions and putting the health and welfare of people and the environment ahead of all other interests, including the self interest of the Corporation of Canada.

Edited August 15, 2009 by charter.rights

[g_bambino]

No it isn't a country. You are subscribing to myths yet again

The British North American Act was a creation of the British Parliament. It was not an act of self-determination. When the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, permission was required by the then Queen of Great Britain, who is also now the Queen of Canada - the one who retains sovereignty over all of Canada and IS "the Crown" according to all Canadian law (which BTW is sanctioned by that very same Crown). Her Majesty is still the head of the military, the courts, the police, and the government. No law can be created or applied without Her consent.

Besides the fact that the BNA was written by elected parliamentarians in Canada and voted on by the colonial parliaments at the time, in addition to being passed through Westminster, the argument about Canada being either a corporation or a country is rather pointless; it is both. All states in the world operate with a CEO (the head of state), a board of directors (the cabient), employees (civil servants, military and police members), and shareholders (the voting populace). So, who cares if Canada is a corporation? Every other country on this planet is, too.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You are a head case. Why not just go back a little further to see that the so called "First Nations" were a direct result of European and Asia citizens meeting and breeding in North America. So why not back off and smell the coffee. You can't pick a single time in the past and ignore everything else, the now is the relevant position.

First Nations already have more than they need. The entire concept of all of the agreements from the last two centuries were designed to allow natives to continue to "live" where they were, not have their areas expand. The contractions in territory were a result of those residents "selling" what they had in an attempt to adapt to the more modern European culture.

What the natives "NEED" is a degree of latitude to manage their own affairs, in their own determined best interests. In my opinion the best way to handle the issue is to grant them complete self government. An immediate stop of any kind of public funding is of course the result of that. If you want your independence, then have it. Just realize that in the adult world of reality there is much responsibility involved in the acquisition of freedom.

[CANADIEN]

No it isn't a country. You are subscribing to myths yet again

The only myth I have been suscribing to is the misguided belief that you making sense is anything more than an occasional accident.

Canada IS a country. Period.

You must learn to read and learn Canadien before you open mouth. I have cited all the legal documents which clearly state that all of southern Ontario is still the territory of Six Nations. You must either have been sleeping in class, or are letting your hate get in your way. The fact that Six Nations has let us use the land neither implies that we have jurisdiction over it (or them) or that we have taken it from them. According to our law they must be consulted for any development, charge, extraction or allotment and we must recognize their issues, accommodate them and reconcile with their concerns. That is the law. You don't have to agree with it but you do have to accept it.

So now it's just Southern Ontario? It used to be about half of the continent - according to you anyway. As for hatred, the only hatred I see here is yours for plain common sense. Your "citations" are nothing more that your own slanted and ignorant interpretation of documents.

Legal responsibilities and obligations of the government of this COUNTRY does not change the fact that this IS a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. Whether you like it or not.

[CANADIEN]

You are a head case. Why not just go back a little further to see that the so called "First Nations" were a direct result of European and Asia citizens meeting and breeding in North America. So why not back off and smell the coffee. You can't pick a single time in the past and ignore everything else, the now is the relevant position.

First Nations already have more than they need. The entire concept of all of the agreements from the last two centuries were designed to allow natives to continue to "live" where they were, not have their areas expand. The contractions in territory were a result of those residents "selling" what they had in an attempt to adapt to the more modern European culture.

What the natives "NEED" is a degree of latitude to manage their own affairs, in their own determined best interests. In my opinion the best way to handle the issue is to grant them complete self government. An immediate stop of any kind of public funding is of course the result of that. If you want your independence, then have it. Just realize that in the adult world of reality there is much responsibility involved in the acquisition of freedom.

Obviously, CR is not the only one with problem with facts. First Nations have already more than what they need? Considering the poverty, the helplessness, the crime, the illnesses that plague them and how the way they have been treated was and still is a contributing factor, I only shudder to think how things would be if they had less than what they need.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Obviously, CR is not the only one with problem with facts. First Nations have already more than what they need? Considering the poverty, the helplessness, the crime, the illnesses that plague them and how the way they have been treated was and still is a contributing factor, I only shudder to think how things would be if they had less than what they need.

Of course the only poor people are natives. These are the folks that can hunt and fish to feed themselves all year long. These are the folks who can own and operate casinos on their land that don't pay a dime in taxes. Some of these folks don't pay taxes themselves. In addition a great many of these folks receive checks every month from the government.

I simply won't head down the poor you path and say we need to do more for them. They need to start doing for themselves. The casinos are a start, and a good one at that. Why doesn't one band help another band? Why don't they start taking care of each other? Why should the federal and provincial governments accept that these people are all entitled to live for free? It costs everyone else to live why not the natives?

Lets start thinking about the reality of the situation here people.

[benny]

It costs everyone else to live why not the natives?

Lets start thinking about the reality of the situation here people.

The reality is that (Albertan) polluters cannot stop doing what is overly costly for the environment.

[Riverwind]

The two keys elements you wilfully neglect are that the claims are made by First NATIONS, and therefore are not estinguished because those who were alive when the cliams were initiated are now dead, and we are talking about payments, not inheritences.

I can't remember if you specifically made the claim but many do try rationalize aboriginal rights by claiming their are nothing but inheritances that any other Canadian would be entitled to receive. That argument is nonsense. Treaties grant special rights to people based on their ancentry and are really no different from the laws that granted special rights to white south africans. The "they were here first" argument does not make the special rights any less appalling.

The distortion of the true meaning of democracy is yours.

Gee. The idea that all citizens have an equal set of rights no matter what their ancentry is a distortion of democracy? Edited August 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

Gee. The idea that all citizens have an equal set of rights no matter what their ancentry is a distortion of democracy?

What ever are you talking about? Equal rights does not necessarily equate to full equality; there are countless, openly accepted aspects of our society where discrimination comes into play. Treaties are simply contracts between two groups, mutually acceptable agreements between parties in which there is usually a give and take for each side. One group taking from another without compensation, as you suggest should have been, and should now be, done, is far more an affront to democracy and human rights than any contract that sets out what will be given in return for something else.

[tango]

I can't remember if you specifically made the claim but many do try rationalize aboriginal rights by claiming their are nothing but inheritances that any other Canadian would be entitled to receive. That argument is nonsense. Treaties grant special rights to people based on their ancentry and are really no different from the laws that granted special rights to white south africans. The "they were here first" argument does not make the special rights any less appalling.

Gee. The idea that all citizens have an equal set of rights no matter what their ancentry is a distortion of democracy?

If they were here first with sovereign and functioning societies, when and how did they cease to be sovereign in their own right, riv?

[CANADIEN]

Of course the only poor people are natives. These are the folks that can hunt and fish to feed themselves all year long. These are the folks who can own and operate casinos on their land that don't pay a dime in taxes. Some of these folks don't pay taxes themselves. In addition a great many of these folks receive checks every month from the government.

I simply won't head down the poor you path and say we need to do more for them. They need to start doing for themselves. The casinos are a start, and a good one at that. Why doesn't one band help another band? Why don't they start taking care of each other? Why should the federal and provincial governments accept that these people are all entitled to live for free? It costs everyone else to live why not the natives?

Lets start thinking about the reality of the situation here people.

Good suggestion. follow it.

[CANADIEN]

I can't remember if you specifically made the claim but many do try rationalize aboriginal rights by claiming their are nothing but inheritances that any other Canadian would be entitled to receive. That argument is nonsense. Treaties grant special rights to people based on their ancentry and are really no different from the laws that granted special rights to white south africans. The "they were here first" argument does not make the special rights any less appalling.

Making a fool of yourself with the Apartheid comparison again, I see.

Gee. The idea that all citizens have an equal set of rights no matter what their ancentry is a distortion of democracy?

The distortion of democracy is the idea that the majority can shove anything they want down other people throats, and the absurdist notion that respect for mutually agreed financial commitments is somehow an extra set of rights.

[Riverwind]

Treaties are simply contracts between two groups, mutually acceptable agreements between parties in which there is usually a give and take for each side.

The terms of the contracts include provisions that would never be acceptable if they were negotiated today (e.g. the terms that confer benefits on people based on their DNA). This is why I bring of the example of contracts to own slaves. In those cases the contracts were "mutually acceptable agreements between parties" but the contracts had terms which are unacceptable today and no one living today has any problem with the government ripping up those contracts without compensation.

The bottom line is contractal agreements that bind future generations do not trump morality and that one cannot argue that treaties must be honoured because they are "contracts" and all contracts must be honoured. That said, you can argue that honouring these particular contracts is morally justified because you believe that the "they were hear first" argument has some moral significance. I happen to disagree but we are disagreeing about values - not law.

[CANADIEN]

The terms of the contracts include provisions that would never be acceptable if they were negotiated today (e.g. the terms that confer benefits on people based on their DNA). This is why I bring of the example of contracts to own slaves. In those cases the contracts were "mutually acceptable agreements between parties" but the contracts had terms which are unacceptable today and no one living today has any problem with the government ripping up those contracts without compensation.

The bottom line is contractal agreements that bind future generations do not trump morality and that one cannot argue that treaties must be honoured because they are "contracts" and all contracts must be honoured. That said, you can argue that honouring these particular contracts is morally justified because you believe that the "they were hear first" argument has some moral significance. I happen to disagree but we are disagreeing about values - not law.

Bizarre that you never mention the fact that most of the terms of the contracts were designed, interpreted and implemented so that Aboriginals would be scr*wed out of their land, their culture, and their dignity.

Injstead, you make once again the ridiculous comparison with slavery.

[g_bambino]

The terms of the contracts include provisions that would never be acceptable if they were negotiated today (e.g. the terms that confer benefits on people based on their DNA).

The DNA is tangential to the agreements; do you feel treaties between Canada and China are racist?

[Riverwind]

The distortion of democracy is the idea that the majority can shove anything they want down other people throats, and the absurdest notion that respect for mutually agreed financial commitments is somehow an extra set of rights.

Tax exemptions based on one's ancentry are additional rights. The provisions within the Indian act used to determine whether mixed blood people are entitled to those rights have a lot of similarity to the provisions the south African government used to determine whether a someone was white, coloured or black.

If you want to take the absurdest position that archaic contracts must be honoured because all contracts must be honoured no matter how immoral then you have no business complaining when I point out that in a democracy the majority rules no matter how immoral those ruling may be.

If you want to argue that moral considerations should restrict what the democratic majority is allowed to do then I argue that moral considerations also limit the obligations of the government when dealing with out of date contracts.

What you cannot do is try to have it both ways where you insists on saying the "law is the law" when it comes to treaties but then use moral arguments to reject the notion that the majority is free to change the law if it does not suit them.

[Riverwind]

The DNA is tangential to the agreements; do you feel treaties between Canada and China are racist?

China is a sovereign country and there is no overlap between the legal jurisdictions of Canada and China. Aboriginal groups are not sovereign nations no matter what they claim and any agreement with these groups is no different from an agreement between the Federal government and a provincial/municipal government. Agreements between different levels of Canadian governments cannot have provisions that dicriminate against different Canadians based on their ancentry.

[CANADIEN]

Tax exemptions based on one's ancentry are additional rights. The provisions within the Indian act used to determine whether mixed blood people are entitled to those rights have a lot of similarity to the provisions the south African government used to determine whether a someone was white, coloured or black.

If you want to take the absurdest position that archaic contracts must be honoured because all contracts must be honoured no matter how immoral then you have no business complaining when I point out that in a democracy the majority rules no matter how immoral those ruling may be.

If you want to argue that moral considerations should restrict what the democratic majority is allowed to do then I argue that moral considerations also limit the obligations of the government when dealing with out of date contracts.

What you cannot do is try to have it both ways where you insists on saying the "law is the law" when it comes to treaties but then use moral arguments to reject the notion that the majority is free to change the law if it does not suit them.

Let's not be confused here. The one who is trying to have it both ways is you, attempting to justify the continuation and worsening of an historical injustice while falsely arguing that the victims of that injustice are ripping unwarranted benefits out of it.

[CANADIEN]

China is a sovereign country and there is no overlap between the legal jurisdictions of Canada and China. Aboriginal groups are not sovereign nations no matter what they claim and any agreement with these groups is no different from an agreement between the Federal government and a provincial/municipal government. Agreements between different levels of Canadian governments cannot have provisions that dicriminate against different Canadians based on their ancentry.

While the First Nations are not sovereign, they ARE nations an the relationship between them and the federal government is not akin to that between the feds and provincial governments.

[Riverwind]

Bizarre that you never mention the fact that most of the terms of the contracts were designed, interpreted and implemented so that Aboriginals would be scr*wed out of their land, their culture, and their dignity.

All the more reason to despense with the notion that the treatries must be honoured because they are a binding contract. I am all for re-inventing the relationship between aboriginals and the rest of us and that reinvention probably should include real self government provisions and an large expansion of the land base controlled by the various aborignal groups. What I don't agree with is the notion that we have to be bound by every term that benefits aboriginals while attempting to rectify the terms that are unfair to them.