M.Dancer Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 The Metis are not First Nations. True..I keep forgetting how racist the "first nation" designation is.... nevertheless, Crees are 1st nations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 True..I keep forgetting how racist the "first nation" designation is.... nevertheless, Crees are 1st nations... No, but the Metis are Aboriginal. As are First Nations and Inuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 No, but the Metis are Aboriginal. As are First Nations and Inuit. Sort of like saying there are blacks....and real blacks and almost blacks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sort of like saying there are blacks....and real blacks and almost blacks... Isn't that what the "Yellow Rose of Texas" was about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sort of like saying there are blacks....and real blacks and almost blacks... Perhaps. Or more like saying, Nigerians, Haitians and Jamaicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Perhaps. Or more like saying, Nigerians, Haitians and Jamaicans. Which are the First nations and which are the not good enough to be first, nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Which are the First nations and which are the not good enough to be first, nations? Why do you automatically presume that the designation is based on "good enough?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Why do you automatically presume that the designation is based on "good enough?" Because First assumes there are others... As in First Place First in line First Class It implies that the Inuit and Metis are second class aboriginals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Because First assumes there are others... As in First Place First in line First Class It implies that the Inuit and Metis are second class aboriginals It does? "First Nations" are included within the definition of "Aboriginal." The term "First" is not a descriptor of "Aboriginal," but rather "Nations." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 It does? "First Nations" are included within the definition of "Aboriginal." The term "First" is not a descriptor of "Aboriginal," but rather "Nations." Yes in the designation of Aboriginals there are: The first nations and then the other ones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chippewa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Because First assumes there are others... As in First Place First in line First Class It implies that the Inuit and Metis are second class aboriginals In section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. First Nations are not recognized, but aboriginal rights and treaties are. First Nations means non immigrants in other words. What is the word "Indian" in the "Indian Act". Is that a word to take away from the Nationhood of First Nations in Canada. Or is a word that makes people "non humans" but "Indians" under this act. If so, until 1953 when canada made all First Nations or "Aboriginal" children "Wards of the state" they broke some major laws. Maybe you heard of them. United Nations Declaration. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Canada "Wards of the State" are not considered Human. So according to the Canadian law, First Nations have only been considered Human since 1953. I would say Canada is guilty of the following United Nations declaration Articles. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. This is called the Indian Act Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Canada will not go to court over genocide they committed with the Churches. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. The 60s baby scoop, when RCMP, and Church officials were granted permission to abduct and murder children in Canada. Article 15. (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. This means that an "Indian" under the "Indian Act' should never have been recognized. It is the most racist legislation left in the world. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Canadian Residential Schools made sure that this never happened. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Today this law is diguised as Land Claims in Canada. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Except if you were an Indian in Canada. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Still nobody went to prison for crimes committed against First Nations in Canada Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Everyone has the right to work, but only in the form of child slavery in Canadian Residential Schools. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. When your an overworked 7 year old in a field, with no vacation pay, no rest, little food, and barely surviving. Some would say that Canadian Residential Schools violated this section as well. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. This is true if your a Canadian. But if you are a First Nations person, medical experimentation, involuntery sterolization, and the mental torchure children had to go through in Residential Schools, then this article didn't apply either. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Oh.. Ya.. the Indian Act.. I think Canada is guilty as charged. Its too bad they will never be accountable for there genocidal actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yes in the designation of Aboriginals there are: The first nations and then the other ones... No, the designation is, to use your logic of definition, Metis, Inuit and then the other ones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 punked, you have to admit, it doesn't look good that she was a card-carrying member of a separatist party. Surely there's a difference between holding membership in a party and merely voting for a party. I could excuse her voting for the party, due to the complexity of Quebec politics; however, she was a member and her argument that she was just supporting a friend doesn't fly. She also supported Quebec solidaire, which makes it even harder to swallow that she was a full-fledged member of the Bloc. I'm willing to give her a chance because I doubt she'll make any sort of separatist decisions. Michaelle Jean was faced with the same allegations and she obviously didn't end up tearing the country apart. Moreover, sovereigntists have already said that federal politics is not the route to a liberated Quebec anyway. Nonetheless, you have to admit that it look bad, really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 however, she was a member and her argument that she was just supporting a friend doesn't fly. You make good points. Actually, admitting she was just supporting a friend throws fuel on the fire. The last thing we need is another politician who is willing to set aside his/her principles to "help a friend". She did just that even though she supposedly opposed any separatist agenda. One can't help but wonder how far would she go to please and keep her friends. We're talking party leader here, albeit interim, but still representing a national party. Nonetheless, you have to admit that it look bad, really bad. The damage is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 punked, you have to admit, it doesn't look good that she was a card-carrying member of a separatist party. Surely there's a difference between holding membership in a party and merely voting for a party. I could excuse her voting for the party, due to the complexity of Quebec politics; however, she was a member and her argument that she was just supporting a friend doesn't fly. She also supported Quebec solidaire, which makes it even harder to swallow that she was a full-fledged member of the Bloc. I'm willing to give her a chance because I doubt she'll make any sort of separatist decisions. Michaelle Jean was faced with the same allegations and she obviously didn't end up tearing the country apart. Moreover, sovereigntists have already said that federal politics is not the route to a liberated Quebec anyway. Nonetheless, you have to admit that it look bad, really bad. I think we should base who she is on what she does and says not on what card she carries. I think the Liberals said that about Bob Rea and the Conservatives of Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I think we should base who she is on what she does and says not on what card she carries. I think the Liberals said that about Bob Rea and the Conservatives of Harper. The Liberals still don't trust Rae... and the conservatives never said that about Harper, who paid his ideological dues... The reality is, the NPD of today is not the NDP of 10 years ago.... And again, what's the NPD position on the Clarity Act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 In another oops moment, the Chef of the NPD has announced she plans to resign from the separatist party Quebec Solidaire. No word as to what other parties this party girl has belonged to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 In another oops moment, the Chef of the NPD has announced she plans to resign from the separatist party Quebec Solidaire. No biggie. Another friend in need and voila...Ms. Turmel to the rescue. She has personally backed a Québec Solidaire candidate named Bill Clennett — better known in the rest of Canada as the protester who was stopped in his tracks by Jean Chrétien’s famous “Shawinigan handshake” in 1996.She moved to end her association with Québec Solidaire only after her membership was reported in Quebec. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1033658--tim-harper-turmel-s-bloc-past-badly-wounds-the-ndp?bn=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opentoopinion Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Nycole Turmel, from what I have read, is a former supporter of the BQ and Quebec Solidaire. The Bloc are a party most of you know, but for those of you who don't know QS, its a provincial party here in Quebec that is staunch separatist and on the very left of the political spectrum. It is headed by Amir Khadr, the one who marched in front of mom and pop shoe store in Montreal's Plateau area because some of their brands of shoes were made in Israel. "The 68-year-old was part of the orange wave that swept across Quebec in the May election. She defeated a five-term incumbent in Hull-Aylmer, which had gone to the Liberals since 1914, despite criticism she supported the Bloc Québécois in 2006 and Quebec Solidaire in 2008." http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/26/who-is-nycole-turmel-potential-ndp-interim-leader/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opentoopinion Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Nycole Turmel, from what I have read, is a former supporter of the BQ and Quebec Solidaire. The Bloc are a party most of you know, but for those of you who don't know QS, its a provincial party here in Quebec that is staunch separatist and on the very left of the political spectrum. It is headed by Amir Khadr, the one who marched in front of mom and pop shoe store in Montreal's Plateau area because some of their brands of shoes were made in Israel. "The 68-year-old was part of the orange wave that swept across Quebec in the May election. She defeated a five-term incumbent in Hull-Aylmer, which had gone to the Liberals since 1914, despite criticism she supported the Bloc Québécois in 2006 and Quebec Solidaire in 2008." http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/26/who-is-nycole-turmel-potential-ndp-interim-leader/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opentoopinion Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Hi I'm new to these forums but I couldn't help it. this is an example of how the most unimportant news makes the headlines. I would invite all social democratic canadians to forget about mdm. Turmel's political background and take into considaration that most quebecois that voted for the ndp were bloc quebecois voters. Now... more importantly the "distict" nation that the quebecois is has now showed that the power for a social democratic party is possible. I'm open to debate but honestly if I'm only dealing with staunch fédéralists or conservatives please don't waste your time. If you are liberals looking for somewhere to go well let us talk about a true leader Mr. Mulcair. I wouldn`t want to be disrespectful to our cheif mr. Layton and I`m hopeful for his return but let us look to the future. For those of you who don`t know mr. Mulcair well I have rarely seen someone put his political ass on the line for an environnemental issue. So mme. Turmel`s background is irrelavant and if the globe and mail (rag) has nothing better to put on their front page than canadian unity is in big trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I wonder why the CPC toadies on this board never had a problem with Tory ministers having been members of the Bloq. Never even mentioned it in fact. They probably wouldn't even mock a Conservative MP if they got cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I wonder why the NPD sycophants can distinguish between a party leader and a non party leader? Must be a cancer of the equivalence ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) I wonder why the NPD sycophants can distinguish between a party leader and a non party leader? Or between a party leader and an interim party leader? So you're saying it's fine for a Minister to have belonged to the Bloq but not an interim party leader? You do know she agreed not to run for the actual leadership when she became became interim leader, don't you? Edited August 3, 2011 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Or between a party leader and an interim party leader? So you're saying it's fine for a Minister to have belonged to the Bloq but not an interim party leader? You do know she agreed not to run for the actual leadership when she became became interim leader, don't you? No I didn't know that. The NPD's other separatists must be relieved. 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.