Harper Colonialism gaffe

[Mr.Canada]

The aboriginals in Canada are among the best treated aboriginals in the world. Free housing, free land, free cars, free monthly support cheques, free University education, free healthcare, free prescriptions. All at the expense of the taxpayer. I think many Canadians would like to be treated likethis, in fact this is pretty much Jack Laytons platform. Now we know where he got the ideas.

Jack Layton wants Canadians to be treated as well as we treat our aboriginals.

[ToadBrother]

The aboriginals in Canada are among the best treated aboriginals in the world. Free housing, free land, free cars, free monthly support cheques, free University education, free healthcare, free prescriptions. All at the expense of the taxpayer. I think many Canadians would like to be treated likethis, in fact this is pretty much Jack Laytons platform. Now we know where he got the ideas.

Jack Layton wants Canadians to be treated as well as we treat our aboriginals.

I doubt you've ever been on a Reserve.

[g_bambino]

So who is the Head of Sate for Canada if it isn't Elizabeth II?

Irrelevant. The problem being pointed out was not that Elizabeth II is Canada's head of state, but that the Queen of England is; August (as usual, and for nefarious reasons) claimed the latter, not the former.

[g_bambino]

The chief document was King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763, which made very clear that they had to be dealt with as sovereign nations, and that the Crown was to act as their protector.

Very close. However, the Royal Proclamation states clearly that the FNs in Canada are under the Crown's sovereignty, not that they are themselves sovereign. This important detail is commonly misconstrued, it seems, on both sides of the debate.

[ToadBrother]

Very close. However, the Royal Proclamation states clearly that the FNs in Canada are under the Crown's sovereignty, not that they are themselves sovereign. This important detail is commonly misconstrued, it seems, on both sides of the debate.

It certainly wasn't George III's intent that these peoples actually be sovereign states, but rather that they couldn't have their lands and livelihoods wrested from them. The idea was that if they were treated as sovereign, to get at their lands and resources, you needed to negotiate treaties with them, much as you would negotiate with any sovereign power. The Proclamation makes it pretty clear that the Crown's duty was a protector of these people.

Not that it didn't stop the abuses, of course (though they were certainly milder in British North America than in, say, the Spanish possessions). In the Delgamuukw in particular, there had been this theory running around that the Aboriginal Title, which the Proclamation sideways acknowledges, was somehow extinguished, that the Crown could at its whim later dispense with it. The combination of the Proclamation and the Constitution made it clear that such title could not be extinguished, that, in particular in BC where most the tribes had simply been forced off their lands without the benefit of treaty or recourse (in complete defiance of the Proclamation), a fundamental right of those peoples was violated.

My point is this silly notion that some uber-right wingers hold that if you get rid of the Indian Act, somehow the issues surrounding aboriginal rights and title will disappear, and they will cease to be treated as legally distinct, simply is not so. The only way you could do it would be through a Constitutional Amendment (the Notwithstanding Clause does not apply to the Constitution Act itself, and these rights are enshrined in Section 35). The constitutional reality of Canada is that you couldn't get an amendment for even the most sensible thing, let alone something as divisive as aboriginal rights.

[normanchateau]

Harper made a very accurate statement......Canada has never tried to "colonize" other areas of the world.....except maybe when there was tongue-in-cheek speculation that Canada might try to buy the Turks and Caicos.

Tongue-in-cheek? The Turks and Caicos actually wanted to become our 11th province:

http://cityinthetrees.blogspot.com/2009/05...and-caicos.html

If the US can own American Samoa, Guam, Midway Island, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, is it too much to ask that Canada acquire its own islands in the sun?

It's about time that we stopped being wimps and use our American neocolonial friends as role models by taking the Turks and Caicos...with their permission of course. After all, we're Canadian.

[crazykai]

Canada was part of the British Empire, thus colonialism. Canadian soverignity from colonial powers was slow to be achieved. For example, we didn't have a foreign affairs department until 1931 and a constitution until 1981. We were forced to fight in the British Empirial wars, ranging from putting down Indian rebellions, War of 1812, the Boer War and World War I. Our early involvement in World War II compared to the United States was out of colonial obligation as well.

Canada's policy on undermining aboriginals, the invasion of their lands, their mariginalization, abuse and attempted assilimation, that's colonialism. Aboriginals are still suffering from that legacy and will for many generations, despite even the best intensions.

If Harper comments came from Vladmir Putin, and you substitute Canada with Russia, nobody would dispute the hypocracy.

I can't believe we are even havign this debate. It's like debating whether or not the Holocaust happened. To quote Barney Frank "Arguing with you is like arguing with dining room table".

[Mr.Canada]

So the Left wing has really run out things to criticize our PM with and this is the best they can do?

If this is all the left wingers have against the PM they are in serious trouble one the writ is dropped, seriously.

Perhaps more energy needs to be put into stopping the infighting within the Liberal Party or how about coming up with a policy plan. I think that the Liberal plan is to vote down every measure that the Tories put forward, win the election then pretty much copy the Tory platform.

The Liberals haven't had a platform and policy for many years now unless you count the Green Shift a sound policy. Canada would be in a mess right now if that thing was put into place with Dion as PM.

[kimmy]

The argument being presented is retarded, and of no value to anyone not emotionally invested in the idea that Stephen Harper made a gaffe.

Claiming that as a former British colony, Canada is a party to Britain's imperialist adventures is (as Danny Williams would say) codswallop. It's like talking about the imperialism of Barbados.

You're wondering why nobody's talking about it? Because it's a stupid premise. There are some smart people on this board who don't care for Harper at all, and they wouldn't touch this steaming load with a 10 foot pole.

-k

[charter.rights]

Constitutionally, Canada is bound to give special status to the native peoples within its borders.

This is incorrect. In fact there is no special status given to natives in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, other than the Charter and any other law cannot abrogate pre-existing rights, or rights obtain through the Royal Proclamation ie land cannot be transferred or occupied without their consent. Essentially the Charter guarantees that aboriginal rights exist beyond the control and limitations of the Charter and other domestic law.

[Mr.Canada]

Well if the aboriginals feel like they're living in a colonial setting perhaps we need to scrap all the special treatment they get and treat them just like everyone else. That should expel and feeling of not being treated equally.

No more tax exemption. No more free monthly support cheques. No more free land from reserves. No more free higher education. No more free housing.

Let's see the aboriginals survive without all this tax payer dollars. Just like the rest of Canada does.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well if the aboriginals feel like they're living in a colonial setting perhaps we need to scrap all the special treatment they get and treat them just like everyone else. That should expel and feeling of not being treated equally.

No more tax exemption. No more free monthly support cheques. No more free land from reserves. No more free higher education. No more free housing.

Let's see the aboriginals survive without all this tax payer dollars. Just like the rest of Canada does.

If they have it so good get a tribe to adopt you and live on the reserve.

[charter.rights]

Well if the aboriginals feel like they're living in a colonial setting perhaps we need to scrap all the special treatment they get and treat them just like everyone else. That should expel and feeling of not being treated equally.

You are still off "Mark!" Aboriginals don't receive any "special treatment". The Charter does not limit them the way it does us.

No more tax exemption. No more free monthly support cheques. No more free land from reserves. No more free higher education. No more free housing.

Let's see the aboriginals survive without all this tax payer dollars. Just like the rest of Canada does.

I see you are into myth making. Since you have those things entrenched in your minde I will provide the facts for those able to discern them.

Six Nations of the Grand River as an example paid more tax to the Canadian system than they received in transfers and benefits. Seems we are their tax burden......

Most of the natives I know (and I know many) contribute far more into the Canadian economy than the average Canadian. While there are some demerits in comparison, I have watched how many First Nation territories have avoided the recession and the problems arising from it. Combined with the fact that we use resources taken from land they have not surrendered (as required by law) as well as the net input of taxes into our system it would appear that we Canadians are receiving far more in monthly support than they are.

First Nations students do not receive free education any more than our children and grandchildren do. Bursaries, scholarships and other benefits are available to all students. In some cases the INAC provides some money for First Nation student post-secondary education, however, it is funded are less than 10% of the mainstream funding (and in some case less than 1%). For the most part scholarships and bursaries are provided for those who might need assistance in paying for higher education, yet the majority go to students coming from families who otherwise don't need that kind of assistance. It would seem that rich people get far more education assistance from the government than natives do.

"Free land"? Are you really that out of touch or is this just another of your failed jokes?

The majority of settlers stole native land and most of Canada either has not been surrendered (as required under the law) or is subject to aboriginal interest. You should be grateful that natives haven't come to take your house away, since Halton Hills is one of the many claims that have not yet been settled. You are free-loading on Six Nations land. The only reason you have a deed (or use permit) for that land is so the government can charge you taxes. It does not allow you ownership of the land, or freedom to with it as you please.

Let's see us survive with out all the revenue earned from the stolen land and illegal resource extraction. If someone wants to do the calculations, I would bet that taxpayer generated income only represents a small fraction of what corporations and resources produce in support of the tax revenue. As taxpayers we directly benefit from the stolen land and illegal activity that native people should be sharing in.

And then of course is the more than $1 trillion that we hold in trust on behalf of Six Nations. It would certainly be interesting to see if we could survive if they suddenly decided they wanted all their money out of the trust at once.

[charter.rights]

If they have it so good get a tribe to adopt you and live on the reserve.

Never fear TrueMetis.....

I came across a quote that seems to people who don't live in reality:

"To generalize is to be an idiot. To particularize is the alone distinction of merit. General knowledge are those knowledge that idiots possess." William Blake

[ReeferMadness]

The argument being presented is retarded, and of no value to anyone not emotionally invested in the idea that Stephen Harper made a gaffe.

Claiming that as a former British colony, Canada is a party to Britain's imperialist adventures is (as Danny Williams would say) codswallop. It's like talking about the imperialism of Barbados.

You're wondering why nobody's talking about it? Because it's a stupid premise. There are some smart people on this board who don't care for Harper at all, and they wouldn't touch this steaming load with a 10 foot pole.

-k

Wow. If if my IQ depends on agreeing with Harper on this, I'm much dumber than I thought.

Harper's statement said that Canada had "no history of Colonialism". When I was took Canadian history, I definitely remember covering the time when Canada was a colony of Britain so right there, the statement is a wee bit suspect.

Canada was created out of British colonies and many of the original citizens were colonists. How can we claim to have no history of colonialism? It's the basis of the very existence of the country! So having been created out of colonies by colonists, the very first thing we do is start to absorb more colonies. Then, just to demonstrate how sorry we are about it all, our government embarks on a plan of assimilation of the natives.

Arguing that Harper was technically correct because it was technically the British that did the colonizing is trying to get Harper off on a technicality.

Harper stuffed his foot in his mouth. If nobody's talking about it, it's because not many people know much about history and even fewer give a crap about the first nations.

[Griz]

Reverse your comments and apply to all you boat people from Europe:

*Special treatment to you = squater's rights

*Tax Free Living? What about the tax-free multinationals and the 70% of NDNS that live off reserve?

*Free Land? What about the free country your squatting on there land squattin terrorist?

*Free monthly support? Where did you hear that one? Are you that dense?

*Free Eduation? Everybody gets the first 12 years of education free? If you weren't so shallow and brainwashed as the all the narrow-minded right wingers then you may see it as an investment?

* If the NDNS have so good on the reserves then why don't you retards make everything like the REZ?

Hold on. I thought the Indian Act reminded everyone of the bad "supposed" colonial Canada. Which is it?

So you want the Natives to have special treatment yet you also want to bash the government that provides the special treatment.

Hrm, some dubious double standards I'd say.

The government of Canada is just awful in the way it treats its aboriginals. Tax free living, free housing, free land, free monthly support, free University.

I'm sure many Canadians wish they were mistreated like that.

[Griz]

The laws were in place well before the boats from Europe arrived with you on it. If you don't like it here please go back

*No more land squatting terrorist rights

*No more multinational corp tax exemptions

*No more first 12 years of free education

No more squatter's rights

Holy cats, I often wonder about people like you and your info? Where did you learn it from? Is the first 12 years of your free education that bad? NDNS don't own the reserves or the houses that sit on them? The banks will not use them as collateral. If the NDNS have it so good on the reserves, then why don't you terrorists, bright as light-bulbs who hold the political power just make eveything like a reserve? Then we will really watch all of you people with special squatters rights jump up and down like some little kid who didn't get his way in a candy store with soiled diaper and snotty noses dripping and crying to the PM

Well if the aboriginals feel like they're living in a colonial setting perhaps we need to scrap all the special treatment they get and treat them just like everyone else. That should expel and feeling of not being treated equally.

No more tax exemption. No more free monthly support cheques. No more free land from reserves. No more free higher education. No more free housing.

Let's see the aboriginals survive without all this tax payer dollars. Just like the rest of Canada does.

[Mr.Canada]

I'm pretty sure you guys are just playng with semantics here.

PM Harper meant that Canada has never gone into a country in Africa or the Caribbean and took power in a minority rule situation.

We need to stop fighting each other and come together to work together to ensure that Canada comes out of this stronger then we were before. Canadians can make the difference if we stop bickering over partisan politics and just blindly throw our support our PM and trust in him to guide through this difficult time.

[kimmy]

Wow. If if my IQ depends on agreeing with Harper on this, I'm much dumber than I thought.

Harper's statement said that Canada had "no history of Colonialism". When I was took Canadian history, I definitely remember covering the time when Canada was a colony of Britain so right there, the statement is a wee bit suspect.

(...)

Harper stuffed his foot in his mouth. If nobody's talking about it, it's because not many people know much about history and even fewer give a crap about the first nations.

The argument being presented here is ridiculous.

The opening post posits that the reason people aren't talking about it is that CanWest/the Aspers are protecting Harper, and that he controls the CBC.

Well, what about Ignatieff and Layton? They can talk about this if they want. Know why they aren't talking about it? Because they know it's a losing position that will win them no support and will hurt their credibility in the eyes of most Canadians.

-k

[g_bambino]

Harper's statement said that Canada had "no history of Colonialism". When I was took Canadian history, I definitely remember covering the time when Canada was a colony of Britain so right there, the statement is a wee bit suspect.

Not really, no. Canada is not the United Kingdom, and vice versa.

[g_bambino]

For example, we didn't have a foreign affairs department until 1931...

No, the first Secretary of State for External Affairs was appointed in 1909.

...and a constitution until 1981.

No, Canada had a constitution in 1867.

We were forced to fight in the British Empirial wars, ranging from putting down Indian rebellions, War of 1812, the Boer War and World War I.

Hardly odd, given that "we" were British ourselves at the time.

Our early involvement in World War II compared to the United States was out of colonial obligation as well.

No, the United Kingdom's declaration of war had no effect what-so-ever in Canada, save for raising the question of whether we should as well; "we" were no longer British by that point. Hence, George VI declared war on Germany as King of Canada, on the advice of Mackenzie King, a full week after he'd done so as King of the United Kingdom.

Canada's policy on undermining aboriginals, the invasion of their lands, their mariginalization, abuse and attempted assilimation, that's colonialism.

No, that's not. Canadian lands were already colonised before Canada even came into existence in its modern form, sovereignty over nearly the entire continent having already been claimed via treaty and proclamation before the end of the 18th century. Those contracts still exist today; carrying out their obligations poorly, however, does not constitute a re-colonisation of the same lands and people thereon.

_[c/e]

Edited October 3, 2009 by g_bambino

[Bryan]

"We also have no history of colonialism..." – Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Canada is not the UK. Canada has never colonized any other independent country. The statement is accurate.

[ReeferMadness]

The argument being presented here is ridiculous.

The opening post posits that the reason people aren't talking about it is that CanWest/the Aspers are protecting Harper, and that he controls the CBC.

Well, what about Ignatieff and Layton? They can talk about this if they want. Know why they aren't talking about it? Because they know it's a losing position that will win them no support and will hurt their credibility in the eyes of most Canadians.

-k

Now, you're asking me to defend what someone else said. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories but mostly for entertainment value. If the commercial media isn't talking about it, it's because they've gauged (correctly in my view) that it won't generate a an audience, and in fact will turn people off. Between the media and our education system, Canadians have a very poor understanding of what was done to the native peoples and our current relationship with them. As far as the CBC goes, I don't know whether they have or haven't picked up on it or the reasons behind it.

As far as Iggy & Jack, I think you've answered your own question. It's a losing position that will win them very little support. A lot of people in this country see Canada is morally superior to some other countries (in fact, this was the point Harper was attempting to make) and don't want to be reminded of the unpleasant fact that we stole the land we live on.

Is the entire basis of your argument that just because nobody in the establishment is making an issue of this, what Harper said is correct? If it is, that's a pretty weak argument.

[ReeferMadness]

Canada is not the UK. Canada has never colonized any other independent country. The statement is accurate.

The more I read this crap, the more these arguments sound like those of a sleazy lawyer trying to get a murderer acquitted on a technicality. Your honor, my client is innocent because at the time of the alleged murder, he was somebody else.

The argument that Canada has no history of colonization is absurd. In fact, I'll go you one better. Here's a quote from Paul Tennant, professor emeritus of UBC, on the subject of BC first nations:

...for by its very nature, colonialism subjugates aboriginal peoples without their consent. This subjugation normally continues, and even intensifies, after a colony attains independence; it is typically marked by limitations of civil rights, restricted access to land and resources, and social controls exercised by government officials. If an aboriginal people does survive, the subjugation can only end when it voluntarily enters some form of comprehensive agreement, such as a treaty, within the contemporary regime.

In BC, almost none of the first nations have signed treaties. I would say that the above statement implies that colonialization is still going on today.

[Smallc]

I don't see where you're having the problem reefer. Yes, we were a colony, but we've never colonized anyone ourselves.