Natives have right too says Canada

[Bob]

The points Saipan and Wild Bill have come from a position of ignorance. Do yourself a favour and take a little bit of time to do even some cursory research. I suggest you start at the defintition of "treaty."

I'm not opposing that, though. I am aware that treaties play (to what degree and associated with what details I do not know...) a role in the payments to the Aboriginal community from the Canadian government. What I am saying is that these financial supports cannot be allowed to become a financial umbilical chord which works against Aboriginal interests. I'm sure we'd all agree that it's in everyone's interests, generally speaking, to see the Aboriginal community in Canada improve itself with respect to the demographic indicators I mentioned earlier (i.e. higher education and income, and lowered rates of divorce, drug abuse, and criminality). Given that moral imperative, perhaps we should examine the existing payment schemes and see how they might be modified, if necessary, towards these ends.

More importantly, let's just get them off the reservations and out of the spiral of self-destruction. At the same time, they need to take responsibility for their conditions. Again, I'd refer you my own personal story as an example of how minority groups can balance integration with cultural preservation.

[Saipan]

Why not let all Earthlings on this planet hunt and fish as they please, year 'round. Why only Klingons?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why not let all Earthlings on this planet hunt and fish as they please, year 'round. Why only Klingons?

For once would you just make sense?

[Saipan]

For once would you just make sense?

Which part of the unlimited fishing and hunting is a mystery to you?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Which part of the unlimited fishing and hunting is a mystery to you?

And who pray tell gets that? Not First Nations, not the Inuit and sure as hell not the Metis. Do you have any idea what the treaties actually gave them the right to do?

[Shwa]

More importantly, let's just get them off the reservations and out of the spiral of self-destruction. At the same time, they need to take responsibility for their conditions. Again, I'd refer you my own personal story as an example of how minority groups can balance integration with cultural preservation.

Why do you assume that the reserves are associated with a spiral of self-destruction? Let me guess, you don't know much about reserves either. Right?

[Bob]

Why do you assume that the reserves are associated with a spiral of self-destruction? Let me guess, you don't know much about reserves either. Right?

Are you seriously disputing that the reservation-system isn't an integral contributor to the problems facing the Aboriginal community in Canada? Do you not see how isolating and removing a population from major Canadian population centres is a problem, and reduces their access to centres of economy, politics, and education?

[Wild Bill]

Are you seriously disputing that the reservation-system isn't an integral contributor to the problems facing the Aboriginal community in Canada? Do you not see how isolating and removing a population from major Canadian population centres is a problem, and reduces their access to centres of economy, politics, and education?

Bob, I'd be the first to agree with you that the reserve system is a classic case of letting leftwing social engineers have free rein over a people. After more than a century we can see the inevitable results. For this alone the First Nations have been well and truly wronged.

However, we should keep in mind that there are reserves and there are reserves. They are NOT all the same! Different bands, different people and different attitudes. Some are VERY progressive and some sadly are the cliche "welfare bums". There is a wide range in between. Also, there are individuals on every reserve who find a way to advance themselves despite their challenges. That's just human nature.

Sooner or later we will see another Einstein, Feynman or Hawking come from a reserve. It's not likely to have a first name of Charter but it will happen.

[charter.rights]

Bob, I'd be the first to agree with you that the reserve system is a classic case of letting leftwing social engineers have free rein over a people. After more than a century we can see the inevitable results. For this alone the First Nations have been well and truly wronged.

However, we should keep in mind that there are reserves and there are reserves. They are NOT all the same! Different bands, different people and different attitudes. Some are VERY progressive and some sadly are the cliche "welfare bums". There is a wide range in between. Also, there are individuals on every reserve who find a way to advance themselves despite their challenges. That's just human nature.

Sooner or later we will see another Einstein, Feynman or Hawking come from a reserve. It's not likely to have a first name of Charter but it will happen.

For once I would agree with you.

However, There is only one Charter. And if I had of married a native women, there would just be a lot more rights spawning around Canada.

[Saipan]

And who pray tell gets that? Not First Nations, not the Inuit

The indians do. And the aboriginals and natives also. Hunt year 'round. Fish, even with large nets.

[Saipan]

And if I had of married a native women, there would just be a lot more rights spawning around Canada.

Which right in that case? Right to pay or right to receive?

That's like the claim Obama is black.

[Shwa]

Are you seriously disputing that the reservation-system isn't an integral contributor to the problems facing the Aboriginal community in Canada? Do you not see how isolating and removing a population from major Canadian population centres is a problem, and reduces their access to centres of economy, politics, and education?

First off Bob, in Canada they are 'reserves' and not 'reservations.'

Secondly, I can't help note that your thinking is of the similar type that helped created the problem you see in the first place. That is apply a one-shot solution to a multifaceted and complex set of problems, which is how reserves came to be in the first place. What you seem to be missing is that 'Aboriginal' is a cover term for a very wide grouping of people in the same way that 'Asian' is or 'European.' You are missing the fact that when Europeans arrived on this continent there were over 300 languages, excluding trade pidgins and sign languages. Each of these languages represented a distinct group of people who may have shared some cultural affinity with others, like Europeans or Asians do, but who were distinct cultures nevertheless.

Being distinct cultures with unique languages that do not reference the same cultural values as some Jewish urban guy, you can see how your thinking might be way off the mark. In fact, many of these cultural values - either very old traditions or new acculturated adaptations - prefer to retain the territorial aspect of their existence, something I am sure that many Israelis can identify with. (By the way, did you know you could fit roughly 48 Israels into Ontario alone?)

There is no 'removing' populations from urban centres since many Aboriginal people actually live in major urban centres. In some reserves, more than half their members live in cities. Now if you want to see how well the urban-prosperity model has worked out for Aboriginals, check out the Canadian prison statistics or the Native gangs in many of our western cities.

So yes, I am seriously disputing the idea that reserves are the main cause of the Aboriginal problems. The main problem, as I see it, is this idea that Aboriginal people all across Canada are somehow all the same and should all be treated the same. The typical stereotypical view which has had quarter in Canadian Indian policy for the past 150 years or so. The reality is much different for those that would bother to look into it; unique cultures, unique languages, unique environments, unique treaty agreements.

The irony here is that you admit to being a card carrying Israeli and God knows how many problems have been caused in the Middle East by the Jewish people wanting their homeland. You would deny it for others, all the while advocating it for yourself.

[Shwa]

The indians do. And the aboriginals and natives also. Hunt year 'round. Fish, even with large nets.

You Asians are all the same.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The indians do. And the aboriginals and natives also. Hunt year 'round. Fish, even with large nets.

No they don't, even First Nations hunts have quotas and fishing is generally limited to personnel use.

[charter.rights]

No they don't, even First Nations hunts have quotas and fishing is generally limited to personnel use.

Actually you are very wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled that conservation might limit an aboriginal right to a resource, they have also concluded that hunting and fishing for a moderate income, or for a community benefit still outweighs any restrictions. Aboriginal people are exempt from laws that specify when and how they hunt, where they hunt and even exempt them from the national gun registration when they ahve an alternative. So Saipan is more correct and you are wrong.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually you are very wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled that conservation might limit an aboriginal right to a resource, they have also concluded that hunting and fishing for a moderate income, or for a community benefit still outweighs any restrictions. Aboriginal people are exempt from laws that specify when and how they hunt, where they hunt and even exempt them from the national gun registration when they ahve an alternative. So Saipan is more correct and you are wrong.

Bulllshite. They are allowed in certain areas to hunt without a bag limit or license this is not the same as saying they can hunt wherever they want and take as many animals as they want.

[charter.rights]

Bulllshite. They are allowed in certain areas to hunt without a bag limit or license this is not the same as saying they can hunt wherever they want and take as many animals as they want.

In fact they can. If they want to hunt in a farmer's field, they don't need his permission. If they want to hunt in the middle of summer they can hunt anytime...even at night....

There is no limit. In one weekend about15 natives took about 80 deer out of Presquille Provincial park and there wasn't a thing the wardens could do about it. The first time it happened the wardens did charge the natives but it was promptly thrown out of court, recognizing their aboriginal right to cull the deer. Two years later they did it again and at that time the wardens merely stood by the gates and asked them to be careful. No charges were laid.

[Guest TrueMetis]

In fact they can. If they want to hunt in a farmer's field, they don't need his permission. If they want to hunt in the middle of summer they can hunt anytime...even at night....

There is no limit. In one weekend about15 natives took about 80 deer out of Presquille Provincial park and there wasn't a thing the wardens could do about it. The first time it happened the wardens did charge the natives but it was promptly thrown out of court, recognizing their aboriginal right to cull the deer. Two years later they did it again and at that time the wardens merely stood by the gates and asked them to be careful. No charges were laid.

You are full of shite

First Nations people are exempted from the application of the Wildlife Act in certain circumstances as a result of the recognition in section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada) of existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Court decisions have confirmed that the constitutionally protected First Nations right to hunt and fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes takes priority over non-First Nations uses of wildlife resources. In recognition of this right, First Nations people are not restricted to specific seasons or to bag limits when hunting, fishing or trapping within their traditional hunting areas for food, social, or ceremonial reasons.

This is B.C. but the other provinces I've looked up have similar restrictions.

Edited November 20, 2010 by TrueMetis

[charter.rights]

You are full of shite

This is B.C. but the other provinces I've looked up have similar restrictions.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that provinces cannot dictate where natives can hunt. Essentially, anywhere in Canada is open to any native in N.A.. That is the law.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The Supreme Court has also ruled that provinces cannot dictate where natives can hunt. Essentially, anywhere in Canada is open to any native in N.A.. That is the law.

If this was true the Government of B.C. wouldn't have restrictions placed on First Nations hunting. So put up or shut up.

[Saipan]

No they don't, even First Nations hunts have quotas and fishing is generally limited to personnel use.

Here they hunt year 'round. LEGALLY.

Of course fishing is for personal use. Unless you feed non-persons, like bears. But in fishing too are racist rules.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Here they hunt year 'round. LEGALLY.

Of course fishing is for personal use. Unless you feed non-persons, like bears. But in fishing too are racist rules.

That's because of the treaties they signed there is nothing racist about it, they do not get unlimited fishing and hunting which is what you claimed originally, and outside of their traditional land they have to get a hunting or fishing license like everyone else. Personnel use is doing it for yourself, family, and sometimes friends It doesn't mean you get to feed everyone with it.

This is getting ridiculous I've got Charter on one side and you on the other, I am surrounded my morons.

[Jack Weber]

That's because of the treaties they signed there is nothing racist about it, they do not get unlimited fishing and hunting which is what you claimed originally, and outside of their traditional land they have to get a hunting or fishing license like everyone else. Personnel use is doing it for yourself, family, and sometimes friends It doesn't mean you get to feed everyone with it.

This is getting ridiculous I've got Charter on one side and you on the other, I am surrounded my morons.

"Clowns to the left of me..Jokers to the right..."

[Saipan]

That's because of the treaties they signed there is nothing racist about it

Yes, there is. If I had a paper signed by some king back in dark history that I can own 55 slaves it won't be recognized anymore.

People who come to any European country to live as citizen have exactly the same right to hunt and fish as those living there since Cro-Magnon. Even if some few skinheads and so called natives moan about it.

outside of their traditional land they have to get a hunting or fishing license like everyone else.

Other races are limited inside AND outside their traditional land. Indians in Ontario are not.

I am surrounded my morons.

Hmm, your morons your problem.

[charter.rights]

That's because of the treaties they signed there is nothing racist about it, they do not get unlimited fishing and hunting which is what you claimed originally, and outside of their traditional land they have to get a hunting or fishing license like everyone else. Personnel use is doing it for yourself, family, and sometimes friends It doesn't mean you get to feed everyone with it.

This is getting ridiculous I've got Charter on one side and you on the other, I am surrounded my morons.

You are a fool:

R. v. Morris – Limitations on Provincial Regulation of Treaty Rights

Both the majority and the dissent in the Supreme Court of Canada confirm the following with respect to provincial regulation of treaty rights:

1. Treaty rights lie at the core of federal jurisdiction over "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" under s. 91(24) – i.e., matters of Indianness.

2. Provincial legislation that infringes treaty rights strikes at the core of Indianness, and accordingly does not constitutionally apply in respect of those rights of its own force.

3. While s. 88 incorporates provincial legislation of general application as federal law, it does so "subject to the terms of any treaty", and accordingly has no role in respect of provincial legislation that infringes treaty rights.

4. Provincial legislation can apply to and regulate treaty rights so long as it does not infringe those rights – i.e., involves only "insignificant interference" with them.