Pay up or leave

[g_bambino]

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.

Sovereignty isn't relevant. We are discussing groups - China may be a sovereign group, but it is a group none-the-less, and one pretty well dominated by Chinese. Further, treaties with China do not become extinct upon the death of the current generation or even a turnover in leadership in either country. Hence, treaties with First Nations are first and foremost about agreements between two groups. Only the definition of one of group, which comes after the fact of the agreement, could possibly be deemed as "racist". But, how else would one define First Nations vis-à-vis non-First Nations, otherwise?

[Riverwind]

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.

DNA based rax exemptions ARE unwarranted benefits and there are plenty of ways to address historical injustices without resorting to those kinds of provisions.

[eyeball]

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.

I'll never forget when Brian Mulroney said Canada would negotiate on a nation to nation basis with the 1st Nations. Don't you think he should have qualified that with your interpretation if that's what he really meant at the time?

If this is what native people mean when they say the white man speaks with a forked tongue its probably more true about most politicians than anything.

[Riverwind]

---

Edited August 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[CANADIEN]

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.

We are bound by the terms until they are changed through fair and equal negotiations. Which, btw, do not include paying less for the land that what it's worth.

[Riverwind]

We are bound by the terms until they are changed through fair and equal negotiations. Which, btw, do not include paying less for the land that what it's worth.

And aboriginals are bound by Canadian law which can be changed by the majority. And if the majority decides that 'fair market compensation' is an unfair burden on non aboriginals then aboriginals can't complain because the 'law is the law'.

You are really having problems with the idea that legal hard ball can be played by both sides. If aborignals want to use the law to impose unfair agreements on the majority then they better be prepared for the majority using their power over the law to rip up those agreements.

If you think playing legal hardball simply leads to more conflict then you need to despense with the notion that aboriginals are entitled to anything that imposes an unfair burden on the rest.

[bush_cheney2004]

....You are really having problems with the idea that legal hard ball can be played by both sides. If aborignals want to use the law to impose unfair agreements on the majority then they better be prepared for the majority using their power over the law to rip up those agreements.

This strategy will only work if you kill all the judges......good luck with that. Tyranny by the "majority" won't prevail.

[CANADIEN]

And aboriginals are bound by Canadian law which can be changed by the majority. And if the majority decides that 'fair market compensation' is an unfair burden on non aboriginals then aboriginals can't complain because the 'law is the law'.

You are really having problems with the idea that legal hard ball can be played by both sides. If aborignals want to use the law to impose unfair agreements on the majority then they better be prepared for the majority using their power over the law to rip up those agreements.

If you think playing legal hardball simply leads to more conflict then you need to despense with the notion that aboriginals are entitled to anything that imposes an unfair burden on the rest.

Your argument is a fallacy on twoopoints. First, it is a well documented that the treaty regime has been and continue to be blatently unfair to the Fist Nations, not the other way around.

Second, the requirements of basic fairness cannot be dispensed with just because they are inconveneient for the majority. Like it or not, we are not in 1960 and we are not in Alaaabama.

[benny]

And aboriginals are bound by Canadian law which can be changed by the majority. And if the majority decides that 'fair market compensation' is an unfair burden on non aboriginals then aboriginals can't complain because the 'law is the law'.

Since when one cannot complain about arbitrariness!?

[Craig1]

We are bound by the terms until they are changed through fair and equal negotiations. Which, btw, do not include paying less for the land that what it's worth.

Thats why its nice to see finally major European banks steping to the plate to fund multi billion dollar lawsuits against the Canadian government

[benny]

Thats why its nice to see finally major European banks steping to the plate to fund multi billion dollar lawsuits against the Canadian government

What are you talking about!?

[Riverwind]

Your argument is a fallacy on twoopoints. First, it is a well documented that the treaty regime has been and continue to be blatently unfair to the Fist Nations, not the other way around.

So? We are talking about trying to rectify those injustices and one cannot do that by creating more injustice.

Second, the requirements of basic fairness cannot be dispensed with just because they are inconveneient for the majority. Like it or not, we are not in 1960 and we are not in Alaaabama.

Now you are making the moral argument - not a legal one. The law is what ever the majority says the law is (the majority CAN change the constitution) and there is no legal concept of 'fairness' that binds the majority in a democracy. Look at the constitutional changes in the US which ban gay marriage - nothing fair about that but that is what the majorty wanted. Edited August 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

Now you are making the moral argument - not a legal one. The law is what ever the majority says the law is (the majority CAN change the constitution) and there is no legal concept of 'fairness' that binds the majority in a democracy. Look at the constitutional changes in the US which ban gay marriage - nothing fair about that but that is what the majorty wanted.

A revolution can create its own majority.

[Craig1]

What are you talking about!?

U.K. Bank backs oilsands lawsuit.Monaghan and Baines bring more than moral support over concerns about climate change and caribou migration. Last March, The Co-operative Group donated$90,000 to support the Beaver Lake Cree's lawsuit. On Saturday, they donated another $100,000. They will deliver a third cheque in August.

"People are referring to this as a David and Goliath struggle," said Beaver Lake Chief Al Lameman. He was surrounded by well-wishers outside a teepee during one of Friday evening's sunny breaks. "Truer words were never spoken."

One hundred and thirty-three years ago, the band signed Treaty 6. In it, they were given reserve land and the right to hunt and fish in perpetuity on a much larger piece of territory, their traditional hunting grounds. The essence of the lawsuit is that approximately 17,000 approved oilsands projects will make hunting and fishing impossible for the 920-member band and their future generations.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Bank+b...1826/story.html

[bush_cheney2004]

Second, the requirements of basic fairness cannot be dispensed with just because they are inconveneient for the majority. Like it or not, we are not in 1960 and we are not in Alaaabama.

More relevant to the issue, you are not in 1960 and you are not in British Columbia or Ontario.

[benny]

U.K. Bank backs oilsands lawsuit.Monaghan and Baines bring more than moral support over concerns about climate change and caribou migration. Last March, The Co-operative Group donated$90,000 to support the Beaver Lake Cree's lawsuit. On Saturday, they donated another $100,000. They will deliver a third cheque in August.

"People are referring to this as a David and Goliath struggle," said Beaver Lake Chief Al Lameman. He was surrounded by well-wishers outside a teepee during one of Friday evening's sunny breaks. "Truer words were never spoken."

One hundred and thirty-three years ago, the band signed Treaty 6. In it, they were given reserve land and the right to hunt and fish in perpetuity on a much larger piece of territory, their traditional hunting grounds. The essence of the lawsuit is that approximately 17,000 approved oilsands projects will make hunting and fishing impossible for the 920-member band and their future generations.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Bank+b...1826/story.html

I don't see this as a multi billion dollar lawsuit.

[Craig1]

I don't see this as a multi billion dollar lawsuit.

It will if Precedence is set

[benny]

It will if Precedence is set

The Cree are not even suing the governments for money.

Edited August 15, 2009 by benny

[Craig1]

The Cree are not even suing the governments for money.

In Alberta alone it could effects $100 billion in economic development . you never know the court could look at compensation and/or reclaiming the land that could cost another $100 billion and thats only one small peace of this Nation. once precedence is set you can bet your ass this Country will be up to its neck in legal ramer.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Craig1

[Craig1]

I believe the economic are this. They are a huge drain, contribute next to nothing and want hand outs in perpetuity. I frankly don't know why they stay here. Surely the hunting grounds are better in russia?

That how I feel about the majority of old people.

[charter.rights]

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.

Nope. It is a corporation sanction by its owner - the Queen.

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.

Ah so you blather away and still don't follow along. A big mouth doesn't outweigh the facts. So let's see if you can get this right:

Six Nations still holds territorial rights to southern Ontario - from Montreal along the Ottawa River through Nippissing and down the west shore of Lake Huron. This territory was recognized in the Mitchell Map 1757 and again in the Royal Proclamation1763. Now it is up to you to prove that since the RP1763 Six nations made a valid surrender to the British or to Canada as required under the RP1763. I would suggest that if you think this ever happened then you contact Indian Affairs lawyers since they haven't been able to prove it either. They would welcome any evidence you think you may have. However, spouting off some amateur opinion is as lame as your arguments have been her in this thread.

Secondly, all of Canada is under the territorial jurisdiction of ~some~ First Nation. Read the Royal Proclamation sonny. You'll see why it is protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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.

This "government" has never asserted its sovereignty over First Nations. Moreover, any hint of it before the Supreme Court has resulted in the government getting their hands slapped and order to comply. That means consultation, accommodation etc. Now if Canada were truly a sovereign country and not bound by laws that over-ride its parliament, then it would be sovereign over every person within its borders, and able to change the treaties, and laws that were created to protect the sovereignty of First Nations.

Whether YOU like or not chum, the government must seek Royal Assent (consent) before any law can be enacted and they certainly cannot make laws, or reduce the authority of the Queen of Canada, without her consent. If Canada were a sovereign nation like the US, they would not be allowing another reigning authority to control its laws, its government, its courts, or its armed forces. The myth that Canada is a sovereign is a legally fabricated myth.

Now....if you are smart you will figure out why it was legally constructed that way.....but I'm not counting on your intelligence to figure it out....You're just not that smart....

[kimmy]

If you suggest that black people should return to Africa or middle eastern people should return to the Middle East, you're the worst kind of racist.

But if you suggest that white people should return to Europe, you're a progressive.

Par for the course.

-k

[g_bambino]

If Canada were a sovereign nation like the US, they would not be allowing another reigning authority to control its laws, its government, its courts, or its armed forces. The myth that Canada is a sovereign is a legally fabricated myth.

Good grief. Do you even know what document the Charter of Rights is a part of?

[Guest TrueMetis]

If you suggest that black people should return to Africa or middle eastern people should return to the Middle East, you're the worst kind of racist.

But if you suggest that white people should return to Europe, you're a progressive.

Par for the course.

-k

Who's been suggesting white people go back to europe?

[g_bambino]

Who's been suggesting white people go back to europe?

See the first post of this thread.