Atleo calls for end of Indian Act within five years

[bebe]

The question is not "Can the King or Queen?" but "Did the Kings and Queens?" and the answer is: yes. The history is there: North America was explored by and partitioned amongst European monarchs, the deliniations shifting through wars and treaties amongst themselves. As far as the Europeans saw it, the King or Queen was owner of the territory, the aboriginal population, like the colonials, were merely inhabitants. Hence, the Royal Proclamation - a constitution for the new territories gained by George III in the wake of the Treaty of Paris - clearly illustrates that the King had sovereignty over all the land and the authority to divide it and dictate who - aboriginal and colonial alike - was to live where and fall under what government.

It's kind of hard to argue that this document means nothing because it was imposed on the aboriginals population, when its the First Nations themselves who hold the Royal Proclamation in high regard, seeing it as their Magna Carta.

[grammar]

I'm not as certain as you, nor is the Supreme Court, I think.

"As far as the Europeans saw it..." is about all you can claim, isn't it?

And of course that brings us right back to ... Aboriginal rights cannot be extinguished and continue to exist in spite of any 'European' claims, royal or otherwise.

Edited July 23, 2010 by bebe

[ToadBrother]

I'm not as certain as you, nor is the Supreme Court, I think.

"As far as the Europeans saw it..." is about all you can claim, isn't it?

And of course that brings us right back to ... Aboriginal rights cannot be extinguished and continue to exist in spite of any 'European' claims, royal or otherwise.

Except the only reason that those rights are recognized at all is because of documents like the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Look at what happened to native peoples in Latin America. They may have a moral right to make claims, but the Spaniards didn't give a damn about that, seized their land, enslaved them, in some cases wiping out entire populations (how many Carib Indians do you think there are in the Caribbean?), so as much as we all agree that these peoples have some inherent right, in British North America, those rights were not extinguished because the Proclamation guaranteed them. In other parts of the Americas, in effect, those rights were extinguished, and in some places, the local indigenous populations are pretty damned lucky that they weren't extinguished along with those rights.

[bebe]

The problem in understanding comes from the mistaken belief that somehow the Crown must have dominion over all the land and native people in order to recognize and protect them. Incorrect, just as Canadian Armed Forces now protect Afghans from the Taliban, or other insurgents.

...

In the history these salient points address the primary Six Nations complaints about expansion, that the British tried to deal with in a number of treaties prior to 1763. So in summary when the Proclamation talks about "Dominion" it is only over the colonies, not over unceded frontier and wilderness occupied by the Indians.

charter rights, I must say it is interesting reading your posts. They contain a wealth of information and sophisticated understanding and interpretation. Thanks for sharing your insight. (I'm studying the Mitchell map, with some difficulty understanding where the boundaries are, but it is fascinating.)

Edited July 24, 2010 by bebe

[Shwa]

Except the only reason that those rights are recognized at all is because of documents like the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Look at what happened to native peoples in Latin America. They may have a moral right to make claims, but the Spaniards didn't give a damn about that, seized their land, enslaved them, in some cases wiping out entire populations (how many Carib Indians do you think there are in the Caribbean?), so as much as we all agree that these peoples have some inherent right, in British North America, those rights were not extinguished because the Proclamation guaranteed them. In other parts of the Americas, in effect, those rights were extinguished, and in some places, the local indigenous populations are pretty damned lucky that they weren't extinguished along with those rights.

Of the 20 Latin American countries listed here:

4 have significanlty large Amerindian populations

12 have significantly large mestizo (mixed) populations

The Spaniards has less impact that their germs and those that the diseases didn't extinguished tended to marry with the Spanish. Intermarriage has other effects with regard to rights and how those rights regarded within a particular indigenous or mixed population.

Island peoples suffered the most, but the Dominican Republic still has a small Carib population:

The Caribs were displaced by the Europeans with a great loss of life; most fatalities resulting from Eurasian infectious diseases to which they had no immunity, as well as warfare. Others were assimilated during the colonial period; a few retained areas such as in Dominica. Small populations survive, specifically in the Carib Territory in northeast Dominica

The island's east coast includes a 3,700-acre (15 km2) territory granted to the people by the British Crown in 1903

[justme]

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

Who cares about the Trudeau Charter? It doesn't stop employment equity from disciminating against people because they're white, but does allow for the restriction of free speech and has weasel clauses. Our values and laws that define Canada come not from Trudeau or the Liberal party, but from our heritage.

[Smallc]

And, whether or not you like it (I think you're in the extreme minority here), the Charter is a part of our heritage...and more importantly, our Constitution.

[justme]

And, whether or not you like it (I think you're in the extreme minority here), the Charter is a part of our heritage...and more importantly, our Constitution.

The monarchy and British common law are Canadian heritage. The Charter isn't even 30 years old yet. I know that Liberals would like people to believe that Trudeau was the father of Canada, but such is not the case. John A. Macdonald is more deserving of such a title than Trudeau.

[Smallc]

Anyway....the Charter and Constitution are part of our heritage. It doesn't matter if you happen to think that the Charter is old enough.

[Jack Weber]

Anyway....the Charter and Constitution are part of our heritage. It doesn't matter if you happen to think that the Charter is old enough.

C'mon Small..

Did'nt you know that Trudeau was a (pinko) scumbag whereas Sir Joh A...Y'know...The guy implicated in a massive corruption and kickback scandal over the transnational railroad,is unimpeachable!!!

[bebe]

Except the only reason that those rights are recognized at all is because of documents like the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Yes it's true, and many treaties as well, all still with the force of law.

In other parts of the Americas, in effect, those rights were extinguished, and in some places, the local indigenous populations are pretty damned lucky that they weren't extinguished along with those rights.

You could say that about other peoples subjected to aggressive subjugation and attempts at mass extinction too.

Generally speaking, I think we try to respect the rights of those who have survived.

For example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany#Israel.27s_dilemma

Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany

The Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany (German: Luxemburger Abkommen, Hebrew: הסכם השילומים Heskem HaShelomim) was signed on September 10, 1952,[1] and entered in force on March 27, 1953.[2] According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the slave labor and persecution of Jews during the Holocaust, and to compensate for Jewish property that was stolen by the Nazis.

...

Despite the protests, the agreement was signed in September of that year, and West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks [approx. $2 billion] over the next fourteen years; 450 million marks [approx. $300 million] were paid to the World Jewish Congress. The payments were made to the State of Israel as the heir to those victims who had no surviving family. The money was invested in the country's infrastructure and played an important role in establishing the economy of the new state. The reparations would become a decisive part of Israel's income, comprising as high as 87.5% of the state income in 1956.[3].

Likewise, I believe that Canadians have an obligation, legal and otherwise, to try to 'repair' the wrongs done against Aboriginal people.

Edited July 24, 2010 by bebe

[justme]

Anyway....the Charter and Constitution are part of our heritage. It doesn't matter if you happen to think that the Charter is old enough.

Considering that the average age of a Canadian is greater than the age of the Charter, how do you figure that it's their heritage? And of course, it does matter that Quebec rejects it. It does matter when it is flawed, but then I guess if the Conservatives were to change it, we could just as easily say that what you think doesn't matter.

[Jack Weber]

Considering that the average age of a Canadian is greater than the age of the Charter, how do you figure that it's their heritage? And of course, it does matter that Quebec rejects it. It does matter when it is flawed, but then I guess if the Conservatives were to change it, we could just as easily say that what you think doesn't matter.

Quebec rejected it for the same reasons they lost on not one,but two...Count 'em...Two accords and a national referendum affording one province constitutional veto power based on being a "Distinct Society"...A ridiculous notion,frankly...

Blame Mr.Levesque...Not Mr.Trudeau.......

[Smallc]

I'm not sure why I, who support almost everything that the Conservatives do, constantly get accused of being some big Liberal cheerleader.

[justme]

C'mon Small..

Did'nt you know that Trudeau was a (pinko) scumbag whereas Sir Joh A...Y'know...The guy implicated in a massive corruption and kickback scandal over the transnational railroad,is unimpeachable!!!

And you call yourself a conservative?

Considering that Macdonald helped bring the provinces together to form the country, and later expanded it to include other provinces, yeah I would say he's a founding father.

Trudeau was a modern day politician that tried to redefine Canada and demonstrated poor judgement throughout his life - including his admiration for Hitler.

[Jack Weber]

I'm not sure why I, who support almost everything that the Conservatives do, constantly get accused of being some big Liberal cheerleader.

Because you're a small c...Not a BIG C...Two dimensional ideologues can't get passed the fact that just because you might not totally agree with them,it does'nt mean your the embodiment of everything they oppose...

I get called a raguing liberal/socialist/leftist by right wing ideologues and a neo con asshole by left wing ideologues...

I might be an asshole,but I'm a centrist asshole...

[Smallc]

Of course Sir John A was a Father of Confederation. That's undeniable. He was pivotal in our history....but....Trudeau is also important in terms of Canadian history. He was perhaps one of the most important Prime Ministers in terms of our identity and our reality today.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Smallc

[Jack Weber]

And you call yourself a conservative?

Considering that Macdonald helped bring the provinces together to form the country, and later expanded it to include other provinces, yeah I would say he's a founding father.

Trudeau was a modern day politician that tried to redefine Canada and demonstrated poor judgement throughout his life - including his admiration for Hitler.

Who said I was a conservative?

You?

And by the way,I did'nt say he was'nt a founding father because he clearly was...He was also quite corrupt...

Edited July 24, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Smallc]

I might be an asshole,but I'm a centrist asshole...

Me too, I think.

[Jack Weber]

Me too, I think.

Welcome to the radical Centre...

Where sanity reigns supreme!!!

or...Are you saying you're an asshole??

Edited July 24, 2010 by Jack Weber

[justme]

He was perhaps one of the most important Prime Ministers in terms of our identity and our reality today.

If by "our" you mean liberals, sure.

[Smallc]

If by "our" you mean liberals, sure.

By our, I mean Canadians. Multiculturalism....bilingualism....the metric system...the Constitution Act, 1982...the failed Quebec Referendum...etc, etc, etc.

[Jack Weber]

If by "our" you mean liberals, sure.

Remember kiddo...Stanfield ran on wage and price controls in the early '70's...

Trudeau simply followed the Con lead...

[Smallc]

Welcome to the radical Centre...

Where sanity reigns supreme!!!

or...Are you saying you're an asshole??

I suppose I can be an asshole. If I have to.

[Jack Weber]

By our, I mean Canadians. Multiculturalism....bilingualism....the metric system...the Constitution Act, 1982...the failed Quebec Referendum...etc, etc, etc.

Saving Quebec from becoming Northern Ireland in 1970 by getting tough with secesionist,Marxist traitors...etc,etc,etc...

[Jack Weber]

I suppose I can be an asshole. If I have to.

Have we come to an epiphany?