Jack Weber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 With his anti-immigrant slant, I'm thinking the poster is a rather interesting hodgepodge of nonsense. Kinda like the guy with the handle that rhymes with "Hi,Dan!"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Or a Dunkin' donut... Are we dealing with Charter Rights long lost brother??? I've debated a number of out-and-out crackpots (Hindu nationalists who believe Indo-Europeans started in India, Atlantis proponents and people who claim HIV doesn't cause AIDS) and one thing is very clear, unless you just like to beat your head against the proverbial wall, you won't get very far. Anyone who thinks that humans started in the Americas has pretty much caught the Crazy Train and is most of the way to Looney Town already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chippewa Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 A poster on this site has lectured all of us many times as to the fact that First Nations are sovereign and not subject to the government of Canada. If this is true, then why would a native aboriginal have any more right to vote in a Canadian election than someone from any other sovereign nation, such as Poland or Bangladesh? The same can be said for people who move to a certain territory. Why are they electing for Canadian Citizanship, when it has the same relevance as a walmart card, when that particular territory has a Language, Culture, that has been here thousands of years before anybody decided to just brand the people as "Indians" of a territory. So if you move here then you should be asking for Cree, Ojibwe, Chippewa citizanships or the citizanship relating to that territory. If you move to Southern Ontario, then you should be asking for Ojibwe or Chippewa citizanships since its the sovereign nations and territories relating to that area. You hit the nail on head this time. The word "Indian" in the "Indian Act" brands all First Nations as an "Indian" and takes away from there nationhood. Its the same as a "caucazoid act" in Europe, where they would brand Poland, England, Greece, Russia, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Scottland, France as just "Caucazoids" and not the actual Nationhoods or countrys. This is how Canada deals with First Nations. Another reason for not letting them in the national debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I've debated a number of out-and-out crackpots (Hindu nationalists who believe Indo-Europeans started in India, Atlantis proponents and people who claim HIV doesn't cause AIDS) and one thing is very clear, unless you just like to beat your head against the proverbial wall, you won't get very far. Anyone who thinks that humans started in the Americas has pretty much caught the Crazy Train and is most of the way to Looney Town already. I know what you mean... You may recall my "discussion" with good 'ol Lictor in the summer and his theory on what a global Fascist empire might look like... Having said that,I enjoy playing with the minds of the patently hapless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 The same can be said for people who move to a certain territory. Why are they electing for Canadian Citizanship, when it has the same relevance as a walmart card, when that particular territory has a Language, Culture, that has been here thousands of years before anybody decided to just brand the people as "Indians" of a territory. So if you move here then you should be asking for Cree, Ojibwe, Chippewa citizanships or the citizanship relating to that territory. If you move to Southern Ontario, then you should be asking for Ojibwe or Chippewa citizanships since its the sovereign nations and territories relating to that area. You hit the nail on head this time. The word "Indian" in the "Indian Act" brands all First Nations as an "Indian" and takes away from there nationhood. Its the same as a "caucazoid act" in Europe, where they would brand Poland, England, Greece, Russia, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Scottland, France as just "Caucazoids" and not the actual Nationhoods or countrys. This is how Canada deals with First Nations. Another reason for not letting them in the national debate. And wishes were kisses we'd all be in love. Are you interested in actually debating, or is this just some sort of crazy grand pronouncement game? None of what you write is terribly relevant, or even remotely possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 (Hindu nationalists who believe Indo-Europeans started in India.... That at least, isn't so far fetched as it is geographically off kilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chippewa Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Tin foil alert I heard that placing tin foil on your head when aliens are trying to invade your thoughts really works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I heard that placing tin foil on your head when aliens are trying to invade your thoughts really works. It also has a secondary effect of alerting families that a kook is near by Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 No. I'd support their trial for treason, and likely their execution as traitors. See above. There is nothing democratic about secession. Secession is a rejection of the democratic process whereby the loser lives by the result of the succession of elections. Then you believe there is no democratic process by which a nation of people could secede from an arbitrary political boundary? Your stance would make the Founding Fathers of the United States treasonous criminals, deserving of execution for seceding from the Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Your stance would make the Founding Fathers of the United States treasonous criminals, deserving of execution for seceding from the Crown. What crown? They had as much right as the crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 ...Your stance would make the Founding Fathers of the United States treasonous criminals, deserving of execution for seceding from the Crown. Well...yes...they most certainly were treasonous criminals. Good thing they won the revolution, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Why support someone in a game they were not participating in and did not want to be part of - They would be classed logically as interlopers and intruders -spoilers of the game! Yes, but they are participating and a part of the game. Otherwise, they would take up arms and secede violently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Since our supporter of the First Nations here has brought up their representation in government, let me say that I fully believe that the Senate, as being representative of the regions of Canada, ought to have formal representation of the First Nations as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I would like to See First Nations involved in this national debate. Because they're a political party now? Since our supporter of the First Nations here has brought up their representation in government, let me say that I fully believe that the Senate, as being representative of the regions of Canada, ought to have formal representation of the First Nations as well. And senate representation for black francophone wheelchair lesbians too, I say! It's only fair! Get enough provinces on side for a constitutional amendment! It'll be a piece of cake! -k Edited April 6, 2011 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Because they're a political party now? And senate representation for black francophone wheelchair lesbians too, I say! It's only fair! Get enough provinces on side for a constitutional amendment! It'll be a piece of cake! -k When black francophone wheelchair lesbians become the jurisdiction of the federal government, without an MP and distinct from the rest of society, then yes. It would only be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 When black francophone wheelchair lesbians become the jurisdiction of the federal government, without an MP and distinct from the rest of society, then yes. It would only be fair. The Senate there is not there to give any particular underprivileged group a veto over parliament. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 The Senate there is not there to give any particular underprivileged group a veto over parliament. -k So you believe that the First Nations are just another "underprivileged group"? Any attmepts to recognize them as the original inhabitants of this country and to give them any say in the federal jurisidiction that legislates their lives from cradle to the grave is nothing more than a privilege? I'm afraid you're completely ignoring history and the particular relationship the First Nations have with the government.To be honest, I believe the Senate ought to be abolished entirely. It's a pointless appointed body, whose "sober second thought" is redundant and questionable considering they're appointed by partisans. However, if it's going to remain and it's going to give balance to Canada's regions, then I believe the First Nations ought to be considered a "region" unto themselves. Their dispersed population and the fact that they have no MP in the House means that they are legislated without a voice. Given all the problems that still exist on reserves, perhaps they ought to have a say over how the government legislates for them. By the bye, that's not to say that there aren't a number of issues with band councils that need to be addressed and that they need to work on cleaning up their own house, but that's a separate issue and our current system isn't doing them any favours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 To be honest, I believe the Senate ought to be abolished entirely. It's a pointless appointed body, whose "sober second thought" is redundant and questionable considering they're appointed by partisans. However, if it's going to remain and it's going to give balance to Canada's regions, then I believe the First Nations ought to be considered a "region" unto themselves. Their dispersed population and the fact that they have no MP in the House means that they are legislated without a voice. Given all the problems that still exist on reserves, perhaps they ought to have a say over how the government legislates for them. That's a broken premise to start with. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 The Senate there is not there to give any particular underprivileged group a veto over parliament. -k Native peoples are not an "underprivileged group". They already possess, and have possessed for over two centuries, a special constitutional status and a special relationship with the Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 That's a broken premise to start with. -k Well, at some point, we're going to have to think seriously about whether we are a nation of laws, or just a mob ruled by the most powerful interests....as the United States as transitioned to in the last few decades! A lot of these treaties were signed before Canada was an independent nation, and the land was empty and undeveloped. Some deal has to be made to settle land claims, and if Canadians just as ignorant about their national history as Americans are of their history, decide to go with the thinking of some Conservative candidates and just tear up and void all of the agreements and Indian and Northern Affairs department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) That's a broken premise to start with. -k I don't disagree, but that's allegedly part of its purpose. Lower Canada wanted equal representation in the Senate, while representation by population existed in the House (suffice to say, I'm certain you don't need the history lesson). The only reason I contest that there should be aboriginal senators is that the Senate ought to have evolved with the nation, providing equal representation to the regions (West, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic). However, amongst all of this the First Nations have been ignored. Although they live in these regions, their issues are uniquely tied to the federal government and historically they have been overlooked as the original inhabitants of this country. As such, I believe the First Nations should be represented equally in the Senate as well. If the Senate is not going to be abolished, it needs serious reformation. Edited April 6, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.