Why do we discuss Canada's attempted cultural genocide as it's

Wild Bill · August 19, 2009

First of all, I am not an Indigenous person, but I respect that the 'pass system' was extemely oppressive to them.
Secondly, Indigenous Nations are more that cultural groups since they have land rights on all of Canada.

We have to learn how to live peacefully with this reality that is newly defined in our laws as the 'duty to consult and to accommodate' Aboriginal rights.

I suggest that your confrontational and inflammatory approach is definitely the wrong way to go.

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?

g_bambino · August 19, 2009

Indigenous Nations... have land rights on all of Canada.

Wrong.

tango · August 19, 2009

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? :lol:

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

Oleg Bach · August 19, 2009

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?

Hey what about the genocide of Canadian males thought early childhood educations that includes gayification.?? :lol:

tango · August 19, 2009

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.

tango · August 19, 2009

Wrong.

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.

M.Dancer · August 19, 2009

That is all of Canada.

Guess again

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.
And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

Not to mention land sold with permission....Now enjoy your beads and trinkets, blankets and pots....

bush_cheney2004 · August 19, 2009

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.

Really ? What about the land no longer controlled by Canada? (e.g. Oregon Territory)? :lol:

Oleg Bach · August 19, 2009

Really ? What about the land no longer controlled by Canada? (e.g. Oregon Territory)?

What you took Oregon when I was not looking - put it back now!

M.Dancer · August 19, 2009

I'll be the first to give a shit about indian reparations when I hear the mohawk give reparations to the Huron for the genocide committed against them. Untill then....

bush_cheney2004 · August 19, 2009

What you took Oregon when I was not looking - put it back now!

Well..sorta....Great Britain literally sold your asses down the river for favorable USA consideration on other matters. This pattern was repeated throughout history.

Oleg Bach · August 19, 2009

Well..sorta....Great Britain literally sold your asses down the river for favorable USA consideration on other matters. This pattern was repeated throughout history.

Maybe you can entice Quebecers to go to Louisanna - and we could be the creep racists anti-immigration types that could yell over the fence at the neighbours and say - "Why don't you go back to where you came from?" We just have to convice them that Louisanna is still owned by France - off topic - but what were the French thinking when they sold out their own....and what were those frinking Russians thinking with the Alaska deal - and those very nice fur trading posts along the coast of Califorina...and what the heck were those natives thinking with the Long Island deal? Jezzzzz- looks like everybody was selling out everbody.. :lol:

Wild Bill · August 19, 2009

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.

"Nations of people with broad rights on land all across Canada."

I saw that. How is it relevant?

So there are more than one sovereign nations, in many places across Canada. Europe has many sovereign countries within its land mass. They have always had borders and border guards.

How does the number of them affect the basic point? Are you saying because there are many there should be no border guards?

I'm sorry if you feel that I haven't read what you wrote but what you wrote still hasn't answered the specific question!

g_bambino · August 19, 2009

I'm not sure what your point is, but the duty of the Crown to accommodate Aboriginal rights applies to all traditional Indigenous land

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.

tango · August 19, 2009

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.

M.Dancer · August 19, 2009

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 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.

Riverwind · August 19, 2009

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.

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.

g_bambino · August 19, 2009

Aboriginal rights exist where law and the Supreme Court say they do.

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.

Machjo · August 19, 2009

Has anyone yet seen an answer to Riverwind's point about how if aboriginals consider reserves sovereign nations they should expect the same customs checkpoints as any other foreign nation, such as the USA or at a border between any two sovereign countries?
Seems to me some folks want things both ways.

What else is new?

Sure, after their land is returned to them. Ottawa is still unrelinquished Algonquin territory, so it would be within reservation borders.

tango · August 19, 2009

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! :lol:

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.

DogOnPorch · August 19, 2009

Sure, after their land is returned to them. Ottawa is still unrelinquished Algonquin territory, so it would be within reservation borders.

I demand that they pull back to the 1967 cease-fire line and give back Jerusalem.

DogOnPorch · August 19, 2009

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 we got sewers and sanitation from the Native Indians now??

tango · August 19, 2009

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.

M.Dancer · August 19, 2009

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.

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

tango · August 19, 2009

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'.