Harper Colonialism gaffe

Bryan · October 3, 2009

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.

It's not a technicality. It's the bang on fact. This nation, Canada, has never colonized anyone. The creative lawyering is all yours. It's like trying to blame the crimes of a parent on their children with the excuse that the parents either couldn't be found or are dead.

kimmy · October 3, 2009

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.

In the context of what was being said-- discussing Canada's place in the international community-- I think most people realize Harper was saying that Canada as an independent nation has not gone about subjugating other nations to our own interests. And Canada's relationship with aboriginals isn't really relevant to that point.

The original poster argues that this is the kind of gaffe that cost Gerald Ford the presidency... but it isn't. It's not going to cost Harper anything, because most Canadians will understand what he meant, and will recognize efforts to hype this as cheap political opportunism.

-k

Topaz · October 3, 2009

Anyone born BEFORE 1947, was deemed a British citizen and after 1947 Canadians are classed as Canadian citizens. So the baby-boomers are the first to be Canadian citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law

kimmy · October 3, 2009

Anyone born BEFORE 1947, was deemed a British citizen and after 1947 Canadians are classed as Canadian citizens. So the baby-boomers are the first to be Canadian citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law

So you're illustrating Canadian colonialism by pointing out how recent Canadian independence from Britain really is? ok then.

-k

ToadBrother · October 3, 2009

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.

That was almost entirely done while British Columbia and Vancouver Island were Crown Colonies. Canada didn't exist at that point, it was still a collection of colonies with varying degrees of self-rule. Until Confederation basically delivered the lion's share of political power to the new Parliament, the responsibility lay firmly with Westminster.

This is like claiming India is a colonial power because under the British Raj, various kingdoms, principalities and other sovereign and semi-sovereign units were brought together under a single administration. We, like India, inherited the territories conquered and claimed by the British. We weren't the colonial power, though we are both recipients of colonial policy.

ToadBrother · October 3, 2009

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.

Who said anything about the Charter? Aboriginal title is guaranteed via section 35 of the Constitution Act and the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

g_bambino · October 3, 2009

So you're illustrating Canadian colonialism by pointing out how recent Canadian independence from Britain really is?

He's not even managed that. Despite the Citizenship Act and the nomenclature of "British subjects", Canada was, for all intents and purposes, free of British legislative control in 1931. Of course, facts never seem important to the hand-wringing victim-helpers.

_[c/e]

Edited October 3, 2009 by g_bambino

charter.rights · October 3, 2009

Who said anything about the Charter? Aboriginal title is guaranteed via section 35 of the Constitution Act and the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Section 35 IS the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution.

And NO, Aboriginal title is not guaranteed by section 35. Aboriginal title is "recognized" by section 35, and that is because it stands outside of Canadian limitation, being pre-existing. There is a huge difference legally, although I can understand how you and others might just considered it to be semantics.

eyeball · October 3, 2009

Amazing how the wingnuts come out of the woodwork. Haper 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.

Harper's entirely correct alright.

Exactly like our defence, and aside from a little token support now and then we prefer to leave the "colonization" of the world to our super-allies.

Smallc · October 3, 2009

Section 35 IS the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution.

Not actually.

ToadBrother · October 3, 2009

Section 35 IS the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution.

No, it is not. It is in an entirely different section than the Charter. There are some that argue, particular after Delgamuukw Decision, that for all intents and purposes Section 35 has become a Charter right, but that's more an issue of interpretation.

And NO, Aboriginal title is not guaranteed by section 35. Aboriginal title is "recognized" by section 35, and that is because it stands outside of Canadian limitation, being pre-existing. There is a huge difference legally, although I can understand how you and others might just considered it to be semantics.

Since you don't even seem to know what the Charter encompasses and what it doesn't, I don't particularly think your legal opinion has terribly much merit. The recognition in question, coupled with older constitutional documents (in particular, the aforementioned Royal Proclamation) means Aboriginal Title was unextingiushed. Now it certainly is possible that a aboriginal group could agree to opt out of that via a treaty with the Federal and Provincial government in question, or, as I've mentioned, someone could amend the Constitution, but the latter is unlikely. My understanding is that the former, where the new treaties are signed, transform the traditionally guaranteed rights.

Mr.Canada · October 3, 2009

Charter.Rights feels the need to turn every topic into a struggle for Natives. I suspect many people tune him out due to this. I don't know why you're bothering at all Toad...hehehe.

charter.rights · October 4, 2009

No, it is not. It is in an entirely different section than the Charter. There are some that argue, particular after Delgamuukw Decision, that for all intents and purposes Section 35 has become a Charter right, but that's more an issue of interpretation.

Incorrect.

Section 25

"25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

Section 35, contained in part 2 of the Constitution actually reiterates Section 25, which precludes any other law, order or article in the Constitution from impinging on those pre-existing rights...including Section35.

Section 35.

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.(17)

Since you don't even seem to know what the Charter encompasses and what it doesn't, I don't particularly think your legal opinion has terribly much merit. The recognition in question, coupled with older constitutional documents (in particular, the aforementioned Royal Proclamation) means Aboriginal Title was unextingiushed. Now it certainly is possible that a aboriginal group could agree to opt out of that via a treaty with the Federal and Provincial government in question, or, as I've mentioned, someone could amend the Constitution, but the latter is unlikely. My understanding is that the former, where the new treaties are signed, transform the traditionally guaranteed rights.

Maybe you should buy yourself a copy of the Constitution. It comes in handy when discussing it with people who don't know that much about it.

Your interpretation of the Royal Proclamation 1763 if as far fetched as I have ever heard. The RP1763 did not "extinguish" title to any land. In fact it clearly not only identifies "Indian" sovereignty over most of the land but in the Commissioned maps that preceded and accompanied the RP1763, it clearly identifies lands that are the territories of several nations of Indians (which by the way have never been surrendered). The British merely claimed Dominion over the people of the colonies, not the land itself.

But in order to know that you would have had to study the Silver Covenant Chain of Peace, Goodwill and Friendship 1710, under which the RP1763 was created and several other acts and proclamations made to clarify to the colonist that they had no claims over any lands.

The whole point is that in 1763, as well as in 2009 land has not been surrendered by natives and treaties did not relinquish title to lands, but set up sharing agreements under which we are still obligated. Essentially the government (and business men) have attempted to colonize sovereign native nations since 1763 (and from Confederation 1867) in an attempt to remove title from First Nations either with their consent, or through force and genocide without their consent.

Harper is a liar and a myth maker. His statement was not only an absolute falsehood, but totally inconsiderate of our legal and moral relationship with Indian Nations.

Mr. Canada. You miss the point again. That doesn't surprise anyone here that you are OFF MARK....again. We all know who you are and where you are coming from. Too bad we have to be continually bored with it. A month absence surely wasn't enough.

ReeferMadness · October 4, 2009

It's not a technicality. It's the bang on fact. This nation, Canada, has never colonized anyone. The creative lawyering is all yours. It's like trying to blame the crimes of a parent on their children with the excuse that the parents either couldn't be found or are dead.

Well, first of all, Harper didn't say that Canada never colonized anyone. He said that Canada has "no history of colonialism". In fact, Canada was born out of colonialism so clearly, Harper's statement is false.

WRT blaming the crimes of a parent on the children, the first Canadians were colonists, including those who administered the territory on behalf of Britain. Confederation changed nothing for the native peoples. They were marginalized and subjugated before and continued to be after.

Colonization is a process, not an event. It was begun under the rule of the UK and continued long after Canada started to be self-governing.

whowhere · October 4, 2009

Well, first of all, Harper didn't say that Canada never colonized anyone. He said that Canada has "no history of colonialism". In fact, Canada was born out of colonialism so clearly, Harper's statement is false.
WRT blaming the crimes of a parent on the children, the first Canadians were colonists, including those who administered the territory on behalf of Britain. Confederation changed nothing for the native peoples. They were marginalized and subjugated before and continued to be after.

Colonization is a process, not an event. It was begun under the rule of the UK and continued long after Canada started to be self-governing.

Wow you are ignorant. Fact France Settled Canada. Canada originally was apart of Nouvelle France. Canada, Acadian, and Lousiana. I suggest you look at French Indian Relations. The French and the Indians Co-existed in Harmony. They got along, case and point. The did this for 150 years. <_<

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?amme...@lit(gw010118))

I was not a little surpris'd to find that Governor Innis was the means of alarming the Country with a report of that extraordinary nature, without having any better confirmation of the truth, than an affrighted waggoner's story. Its true, we have been beaten, most shamefully beaten, by a handful of Men ! who only intended to molest and disturb our March; Victory was their smallest expectation, but see the wondrous works of Providence! the uncertainty of Human things! We, but a few moments before, believ'd our number's almost equal to the Canadian Force; they only expected to annoy us. Yet, contrary to all expectation and human probability, and even to the common course of things, we were totally defeated, sustain'd the loss of every thing; which they have got, are enrichen'd and strengthened by it. This, as you observe, must be an affecting story to the Colony

If you look further the French and the Indians worked harmoniously to fight the Americans. After Canada was lost to the British in 1759 seeds of discontent and hatred began being sowed into the hearts and minds of the Indians. Because hatred is Canada's cultural acumen of the last 40 - 50 years and because the British have zero say over Canada's governance the noose is around the Superior Anglo Saxon Populace of Canada.

The Salient point of the English Elite of Canada. British History is British History before 1867 is not Canada's history. British History is not Canada's history, period. Canada has zero right to posture themselves with British History. This fact is heightened by the fact Canadian Soldiers fought in World War II under the enlistment of the British and fought as British forces. History Revisionists would like to boast Canadian indepent involvement - Not true. A Canadian Historical Lie. Canadians were subjects of Britian up until 1955 after which Canadians began being viewed as Citizens and not subjects.

So is Harper is wrong in his remarks. Canada was a Colony of France and beholden to France, After 1759 A colony of Britain and Beholden to britain. World War II highlights this fact.

ReeferMadness · October 4, 2009

In the context of what was being said-- discussing Canada's place in the international community-- I think most people realize Harper was saying that Canada as an independent nation has not gone about subjugating other nations to our own interests. And Canada's relationship with aboriginals isn't really relevant to that point.
-k

Well, that's one way to look at it. But Canada's very existence in its current form is due to one country subjugating other peoples to its own interests and Canada continued that subjugation for decades afterwards. Many would argue it continues to this day. So another way to look at it is that Harper's statement was quite hypocritical. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Harper wouldn't be Prime Minister of anything had it not been for colonialism. So, maybe that's one button he ought not be pushing.

But then, Harper goes on to say this:

We also are a country, obviously beginning with our two major cultures....

Two major cultures. Where does that leave the indigenous peoples? They don't have culture? Or they weren't really part of Canada because they were just in the way?

So, I would expect that the first nations might be a bit put out. And they are.

The original poster argues that this is the kind of gaffe that cost Gerald Ford the presidency... but it isn't. It's not going to cost Harper anything, because most Canadians will understand what he meant, and will recognize efforts to hype this as cheap political opportunism.

I'm not part of a debating team so I won't defend the original poster. I will say that it's quite possible that this won't cost Harper any political points. That proves nothing except that most people don't pay attention to politics (or history) and don't care about the plight of the first nations, past or present.

Reality is secondary. If Harper offended a group that could hurt him politically, he would be bending over backwards to apologize instead of having his flunkies claim he was taken out of context.

g_bambino · October 4, 2009

A colony of Britain and Beholden to britain. World War II highlights this fact.

Yea? How?

g_bambino · October 4, 2009

Two major cultures. Where does that leave the indigenous peoples? They don't have culture? Or they weren't really part of Canada because they were just in the way?

Well, which way are we to have it? If First Nations are sovereign, they can't be part of Canada. If they're not mentioned as part of Canada, First Nations are being ignored. I think the lack of a clear answer to that question contributes greatly to misonceptions about whether or not First Nations were ever colonised by Canada.

ReeferMadness · October 4, 2009

Well, which way are we to have it? If First Nations are sovereign, they can't be part of Canada. If they're not mentioned as part of Canada, First Nations are being ignored. I think the lack of a clear answer to that question contributes greatly to misonceptions about whether or not First Nations were ever colonised by Canada.

I dunno, bambino. Why don't you ask your hero Harper? It's his ramblings that we're trying to understand.

charter.rights · October 4, 2009

I dunno, bambino. Why don't you ask your hero Harper? It's his ramblings that we're trying to understand.

What most people don't get is that First Nations are NOT part of Canada. It is illegal under international law for one nation to assume jurisdiction over another without their consent.

Canada is a Crown Corporation, a government created by the Crown to manage the people and redistribute the wealth under the sovereignty of the Crown. First Nations are also sovereign entities in which the Royal Proclamation 1763 and the preceding treaties that created such a declaration saw military protection for First Nations people as well as an understanding that land would not be taken without their consent. Our fiduciary responsibility comes not only out of this relationship, but out of treaties we created to share the land and resources.

From a governance perspective the Government of Canada doesn't have authority over land and has continuously attempted to displace First Nations from their land, control First Nations people and restrict their territory.

co⋅lo⋅ni⋅al⋅ism /kəˈloʊniəˌlɪzəm/–noun

1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.

2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.

3. the state or condition of being colonial.

4. an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony.

So YES, Canada has been engaged in colonialism for its entire history.

g_bambino · October 4, 2009

I dunno, bambino. Why don't you ask your hero Harper?

Come now, is that what you're sinking to? Unfounded speculation as some form of passive-aggressive personal attack? You're capable of better than that.

g_bambino · October 4, 2009

First Nations are also sovereign entities in which the Royal Proclamation 1763 and the preceding treaties that created such a declaration saw military protection for First Nations people as well as an understanding that land would not be taken without their consent. Our fiduciary responsibility comes not only out of this relationship, but out of treaties we created to share the land and resources.

The treaties do not make First Nations sovereign entities; the Royal Proclamation of 1763 clearly asserts that aboriginals are within the sovereignty of the British Crown, which is today the Canadian Crown.

From a governance perspective the Government of Canada doesn't have authority over land and has continuously attempted to displace First Nations from their land, control First Nations people and restrict their territory.

While the Royal Proclamation of 1763 does also separate First Nations from government jurisdiction, there remains a vacuum of proof here that the government - i.e. the federal Crown-in-Council - ever attempted to displace First Nations from their land unwillingly or "restrict" their territory. The Crown carrying out its fiduciary obligations to broker deals between its aboriginal and non-aboriginal subjects, as well as provide services and goods to First Nations, should not be mistaken for colonial intrusion of one power into the sovereign realm of another.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 4, 2009

Thats too bad! Oh well since they are independent nations I guess they can pay their own way for all they use.

charter.rights · October 4, 2009

Thats too bad! Oh well since they are independent nations I guess they can pay their own way for all they use.

You have ass backwards, Jerry.

What means is that WE have to pay our own way, and I suppose that would mean paying out on the $1 trillion trust we hold on behalf of Six Nations...for starters. The reality is that we cannot afford to pay the natives what we owe them in full. So it is easier for our governments to ignore our own Constitution and courts and take and use their land without their consent. At the end of the day our debt to them piles up when eventually we will end up owing more debt than we can repay.

The alternative, which we are seeing more and more of today is that the natives rebel, taking over land and ejecting our corporations and municipalities and shutting down our profits. That hurts us far more economically than settling lands claims would. Plus as we have seen in the last couple of years, the courts fully support their rights in closing down our developments, since they are within their legal and constitutional rights to do it.

I wonder whether or not you would be so smug if the natives decided to cut you off from your house, or place of business.....

g_bambino · October 4, 2009

Thats too bad! Oh well since they are independent nations I guess they can pay their own way for all they use.

What should be done, once and for all, is have a team weed through all the legal documentation and find out exactly what's contractually obligated and what's not. I understand the Crown has to abide by the agreements its made, and may not always have, but sometimes I wonder if First Nations also really deserve everything they claim they do.

_[sp]

Edited October 4, 2009 by g_bambino