Phil Fontaine Liberal Leader?

[charter.rights]

Shawn Atleo.

Shawn Atleo if a hereditary Chief for life and is obligation to put his nations interests ahead of all else.

[Smallc]

And yet, he can somehow be the AFN Chief. This is why I don't read your BS posts.

[charter.rights]

And yet, he can somehow be the AFN Chief. This is why I don't read your BS posts.

His interests are still dedicated under traditional law to his Nation.

The AFN Chief is really just a lobbyist job. It doesn't interfere with his primary interest and may in fact enhance it.

You can't argue. You are too lame to look it yourself.

[Smallc]

Well, again, to show how far out you are, it's easy to see how a stronger Canada would protect the interests of the Chiefdom.

[charter.rights]

Well, again, to show how far out you are, it's easy to see how a stronger Canada would protect the interests of the Chiefdom.

You're detached.

A stronger Canada would be more of the same, with the Indian Act imposing more on First Nations and restricting Chiefs.

A hereditary Chief is not the same thing as a Band Chief. I know you haven't a clue.

[Newfoundlander]

His interests are still dedicated under traditional law to his Nation.

The AFN Chief is really just a lobbyist job. It doesn't interfere with his primary interest and may in fact enhance it.

You can't argue. You are too lame to look it yourself.

He could do a lot more for his Nation as Prime Minister.

[TimG]

He could do a lot more for his Nation as Prime Minister.

Which is why he is a rotten candidate. Divided loyalties. The PMs job is to put Canada first. No ifs or buts.

[charter.rights]

He could do a lot more for his Nation as Prime Minister.

Not likely. He would have to give up his hereditary Chieftainship and accept Canadian citizenship to be Prime Minister. That is contrary to his nations interests. First Nations are not Canadians.

[Newfoundlander]

Which is why he is a rotten candidate. Divided loyalties. The PMs job is to put Canada first. No ifs or buts.

Yeah and it's not like we haven't had Prime Ministers that have put their regions, or certain regions, first before. As well just because he works to better his Nation doesn't mean he won't work to better all regions of the country.

[charter.rights]

Yeah and it's not like we haven't had Prime Ministers that have put their regions, or certain regions, first before. As well just because he works to better his Nation doesn't mean he won't work to better all regions of the country.

He doesn't "work" for his nation. He is tied to it for life.

[Smallc]

That's enough trolling, I think. I know many first nations people with Canadian passports, and that vote in Canadian elections. You're so far out to lunch, it isn't even funny.

[charter.rights]

That's enough trolling, I think. I know many first nations people with Canadian passports, and that vote in Canadian elections. You're so far out to lunch, it isn't even funny.

Some aboriginal people might use a Canadian passport out of necessity stupid, but their First Nations are not Canadian.

[g_bambino]

That's enough trolling, I think. I know many first nations people with Canadian passports, and that vote in Canadian elections. You're so far out to lunch, it isn't even funny.

Why are you even bothering with his "First Nations are sovereign of Canada but bound and held down by Canadian law like the Indian Act" doublespeak?

I hate when identiy politics and victim politics start mucking up general politics; to me, if a person who belongs to a First Nation or is of Inuit descent is elected party leader and can win a federal riding and can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, then I don't see why they shouldn't be prime minister. If that individual started blatantly serving his ethnic group over the rest of the country, then one would expect he'd have the Commons to answer to for it. However, a part of me does wonder whether other MPs would have the guts to criticise a prime minister of aboriginal heritage, lest they get the ubiquitous racism card thrown at them, which is, in this day and age, a real weapon.

[Oleg Bach]

God no...please, no.

He has to get a hair cut first.

[Tilter]

Why are you even bothering with his "First Nations are sovereign of Canada but bound and held down by Canadian law like the Indian Act" doublespeak?

I hate when identiy politics and victim politics start mucking up general politics; to me, if a person who belongs to a First Nation or is of Inuit descent is elected party leader and can win a federal riding and can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, then I don't see why they shouldn't be prime minister. If that individual started blatantly serving his ethnic group over the rest of the country, then one would expect he'd have the Commons to answer to for it. However, a part of me does wonder whether other MPs would have the guts to criticise a prime minister of aboriginal heritage, lest they get the ubiquitous racism card thrown at them, which is, in this day and age, a real weapon.

In light of Canada's ideas on Racism, if he ran for PM of Canada anyone casting a vote or an opposing party would be considered to be a racist.

[TimG]

Fixed it for ya:

if a person who belongs to a First Nation or is of Inuit descent is a seperatist is elected party leader and can win a federal riding and can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, then I don't see why they shouldn't be prime minister.

This is obviously true but it is bad for the country.

Not all Quebequers are seperatists and not all Natives consider themselves to not be Canadian citizens. But the requirement for a PM is that the person believe they are Canadian and Canadian first.

Edited July 15, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

Fixed it for ya:

This is obviously true but it is bad for the country.

Not all Quebequers are seperatists and not all Natives consider themselves to not be Canadian citizens. But the requirement for a PM is that the person believe they are Canadian and Canadian first.

It is important that we all agree to agree. When I looked at the pic of Fontaine - I did not know he was native - I thought he looked like a little hood in need of a haircut.

[g_bambino]

Fixed it for ya.

Did you? It doesn't seem to change anything, really. The majority of voters choose the House of Commons and the House of Commons chooses the government. I doubt the Commons would put its confidence behind a separatist any more than, as I said, it would keep vesting its confidence in a person of Aboriginal descent who was obviously favouring those of his own culture and hertiage over all other Canadians.

[TimG]

I doubt the Commons would put its confidence behind a separatist any more than, as I said, it would keep vesting its confidence in a person of Aboriginal descent who was obviously favouring those of his own culture and heritage over all other Canadians.

I don't see where we are disagreeing. I am simply assuming that any aboriginal leader with name recognition will tend to favour his own heritage over Canada given the public rhetoric used by these people. There may be exceptions to the rule but they are exceptions.

[Chippewa]

Fixed it for ya:

This is obviously true but it is bad for the country.

Not all Quebequers are seperatists and not all Natives consider themselves to not be Canadian citizens. But the requirement for a PM is that the person believe they are Canadian and Canadian first.

The Indian Act

1961: Amended to end the compulsory "enfranchisement" of men or bands.

So the compulsory enfranchisement was ended in the early 60s, and alot of those cases have been overturned. First Nations have Aboriginal and Treaty Rights which Canadians don't.

A First Nations person has every right to be PM, since this there original territory, and country. Most treatys were never done with a country called Canada, and when Britin left and abandoned those treaties, some would argue that everything would go back to First Nations. Is Canada a country or a corporation?

If you read some of the treatys, none of them are ever written in any Native Language to the Territory, and letters sent to the Crown contridict what most of the Treaties say. I would think that most are invalid, and be ruled that way in an international court system.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations.

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Chippewa

[William Ashley]

1. Does he want to do it at 65+ looking at being 69 when the next election is called?

2. I think he is far more suited to a governmental role - however as a question aside from first nations issues, what would he want to take part in. Last I heard he was doing something in Austrailia, a few years back after Atleo took over as AFN chief.

He is clearly beyond the role of Lt. Governor or Governor General.

He seems to be an advisor to Royal Bank currently, hard to sway people from the private sector.

He is also in the "canadian illuminati"

Norton Rose OR LLP (formerly Ogilvy Renault) When did they change their name?

apparently this is new

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/over+with+Ogilvy+Renault/4884870/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Rose

http://www.nortonrose.com/about-us/governance-structure/

Edited July 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[TimG]

A First Nations person has every right to be PM, since this there original territory, and country.

I dont dispute he technically has the right. Just like I don't dispute that a Quebec seperatist technically has the right to be PM as well. The issue is whether either would be a suitable PM. I say no if the person in question is not Canadian first. Edited July 15, 2011 by TimG

[Newfoundlander]

I dont dispute he technically has the right. Just like I don't dispute that a Quebec seperatist technically has the right to be PM as well. The issue is whether either would be a suitable PM. I say no if the person in question is not Canadian first.

I put my province first, as do many. Does that mean as PM I would screw over all other provinces if I was in power just to benefit my own? No.

[g_bambino]

I don't see where we are disagreeing.

I guess your "fixing" of my post indicated you disagreed with some part of it. It seems, though, that we're pretty well on the same page.

[Wild Bill]

The Indian Act

1961: Amended to end the compulsory "enfranchisement" of men or bands.

So the compulsory enfranchisement was ended in the early 60s, and alot of those cases have been overturned. First Nations have Aboriginal and Treaty Rights which Canadians don't.

A First Nations person has every right to be PM, since this there original territory, and country. Most treatys were never done with a country called Canada, and when Britin left and abandoned those treaties, some would argue that everything would go back to First Nations. Is Canada a country or a corporation?

If you read some of the treatys, none of them are ever written in any Native Language to the Territory, and letters sent to the Crown contridict what most of the Treaties say. I would think that most are invalid, and be ruled that way in an international court system.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations.

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

You can talk about the legalities of such a candidate all you want. The rest of us are talking in terms of "Could he win an election?"

Nobody can become PM because of a court order. If a candidate does not have a solid appearance of being a Canadian first and foremost I don't see how he could ever get many votes.