Atleo calls for end of Indian Act within five years

[scribblet]

Wow, this is a breakthrough, I hope the gov't listens. Didn't Chretien write a white paper on abolishing the Indian Act during Trudeaus' reign?

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100720/atleo-indian-act-100720/

WINNIPEG — The head of the Assembly of First Nations is calling for a new relationship with the federal government and an end to the Indian Act within five years.

Shawn Atleo told the assembly's annual meeting in Winnipeg that federal laws governing aboriginals have led to high rates of suicide, poverty and health problems.

Atleo says he'd like to see aboriginals get out "from under" the Indian Act and strike a new relationship with the government on land claims, resource-sharing and education.

The national chief says aboriginals are still fighting for health care, land and other things promised in treaties more than a century ago.

He also wants natives to get more funding from non-government sources, for example, through agreements with corporations.

Atleo, a 43-year-old businessman from British Columbia, was elected national chief a year ago.

[Bryan]

Wow, this is a breakthrough, I hope the gov't listens. Didn't Chretien write a white paper on abolishing the Indian Act during Trudeaus' reign?

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100720/atleo-indian-act-100720/

I like it. Abolish the act, and remove the distinction between aboriginals and everyone else. What's done is done, it's time to move on.

[charter.rights]

I like it. Abolish the act, and remove the distinction between aboriginals and everyone else. What's done is done, it's time to move on.

It won't happen primarily because it gives the government power over natives.

The government can't "remove the distinction between aboriginals and everyone else." because it is a right entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Smallc]

Well, the Charter can always be amended...even if it's difficult. This is especially true though, if the aboriginal peoples agree.

[Bryan]

It won't happen primarily because it gives the government power over natives.

The government can't "remove the distinction between aboriginals and everyone else." because it is a right entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter is just a piece of paper. Change it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The Charter is just a piece of paper. Change it.

That's one of the more ignorant things I've seen on this forum.

[Smallc]

The Charter is just a piece of paper. Change it.

Oh...you were serious....

[Bryan]

That's one of the more ignorant things I've seen on this forum.

We had a different one before. Why is it OK for Trudeau to change it, but not anyone else?

Edited July 21, 2010 by Bryan

[Smallc]

We had a different one before. Why is it OK for Trudeau to change it, but not anyone else?

That was simply a law. This is part of the Constitution.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We had a different one before. Why is it OK for Trudeau to change it, but not anyone else?

I was referring to the "just a piece of paper" comment.

[Bonam]

I was referring to the "just a piece of paper" comment.

You're right. There's certainly also an electronic version.

[Bryan]

That was simply a law. This is part of the Constitution.

So?

[Smallc]

So?

So, it's a bit different. It shouldn't really need explanation.

[Bryan]

So, it's a bit different. It shouldn't really need explanation.

Politicians wrote it, it wasn't handed down from Mount Sinai.

[Smallc]

Politicians wrote it, it wasn't handed down from Mount Sinai.

No, that's true....but it does protect some o the most fundamental rights that we have as a people. it shouldn't just be changed willy nilly...though I agree with you that this particular change may be worthwhile. It would be good for all involved.

[Shwa]

No, that's true....but it does protect some o the most fundamental rights that we have as a people. it shouldn't just be changed willy nilly...though I agree with you that this particular change may be worthwhile. It would be good for all involved.

The problem is that Atleo isn't calling for the abolishment of the Indian Act and then that's that, dust our hands. So be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

[Wild Bill]

So?

Bryan, when Trudeau and the boys wrote up the new constitution, they also wrote up the conditions for any amendments or changes.

If you read them you will quickly see that it would require such a high majority among not just the MPs but also the provinces that in the real world it could never happen!

In effect, Trudeau got the Constitution 'cast in stone' so that it would never be changed.Many have wondered since then if this happened deliberately or by simple oversight.

Some lean towards 'deliberate'. For instance, the 'right to property' was left out, to the delight of the NDP! It will never get included under the amending formula. Unlike the documents of other democracies, ours can never change with the times or be improved if it originally had any flaws.

That's why you're getting the laughing comments in this thread. This point has been mentioned many times before. People aren't really laughing at you so much as laughing bitterly about the situation.

[Smallc]

The problem is that Atleo isn't calling for the abolishment of the Indian Act and then that's that, dust our hands. So be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Wishing that all people were equal isn't really that big of a problem, I don't think. It would require years of work though to get to that point.

[Smallc]

Bryan, when Trudeau and the boys wrote up the new constitution, they also wrote up the conditions for any amendments or changes.

If you read them you will quickly see that it would require such a high majority among not just the MPs but also the provinces that in the real world it could never happen!

In effect, Trudeau got the Constitution 'cast in stone' so that it would never be changed.Many have wondered since then if this happened deliberately or by simple oversight.

That was definitely on purpose. Constitutions aren't meant to be changed on a whim, an they're written as such.

[Shwa]

Wishing that all people were equal isn't really that big of a problem, I don't think. It would require years of work though to get to that point.

I'll bite. (counterpoint)

In what way - through the Constitution - are people "not equal" and does this affect other sectors of society that deal with inequalities?

[Smallc]

Aboriginal rights are, under the current arrangement, separate, and different. They lack some rights that others have and they enjoy some that others don't. It is, in reality, an injustice of a sort.

[Shwa]

Aboriginal rights are, under the current arrangement, separate, and different. They lack some rights that others have and they enjoy some that others don't. It is, in reality, an injustice of a sort.

But this can be re-written:

Prisoners rights are, under the current arrangement, separate, and different. They lack some rights that others have and they enjoy some that others don't. It is, in reality, a justice of a sort.

[Smallc]

[Shwa]

LOL!

How about this then:

Francophone rights are, under the current arrangement, separate, and different. They lack some rights that others have and they enjoy some that others don't. It is, in reality, a justice of a sort.

Does that work better?

[Smallc]

An injustice, but yes, that works better.