Aborigina-only fisheries not discriminatory,

[maplesyrup]

Aboriginal-only fisheries not discriminatory, top B.C. court rules

Gotta like it!

[willy]

Why do you have to like it?

The native fisheries in BC already own a disproportional number of commercial licenses. How is this good for the fish stocks or the native/non native relationships?

[takeanumber]

It's their water and their land.

Next time stand by your treaties instead of trying to rewrite them all the time.

Better yet, next time, instead of stealing ppl's lands without treaties, you might want to try drawing up a few.

Plus, better to have them fish. That way they don't have to move away from their reserve, and they can be employed.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why do you have to like it?

The native fisheries in BC already own a disproportional number of commercial licenses. How is this good for the fish stocks or the native/non native relationships?

European settlers already own and control the vast majority of Canada and it's wealth... How is this good for the environment or the native/non-native relationships?

[Hawk]

takeanumber:

It's their water and their land.

No actually its Canadian soil

Next time stand by your treaties instead of trying to rewrite them all the time.

Treaties can be broken, in fact it is common for them TO be broken. Get over it, not to mention they have something called The Indian Act which I think is the most abusive legislation against natives there could possibly be.

Plus, better to have them fish. That way they don't have to move away from their reserve, and they can be employed.

God forbid that natives should move off the reserves and become like the rest of us Canadians, that would just be wrong =p Hey, I thought we were all trying to be equal right? Get your story straight.

TTS:

European settlers already own and control the vast majority of Canada and it's wealth... How is this good for the environment or the native/non-native relationships?

Because:

1. Natives dont own the land, nor do they represent the majority. So if they dont like not owning Canada tough luck

2. The enviroment isn't being hurt by the dump sites you call reserves? Have you ever BEEN on a native reserve sir? I assure you, the native people of America are not the enviromentalists you seem to believe them to be =p

[maplesyrup]

BC is a good example of the complications of the treaty process. Actually First Nations people in BC have claim to a substantial part of the province. It is time for us non-aboriginals to show some respect.

[Hawk]

BC is a good example of the complications of the treaty process. Actually First Nations people in BC have claim to a substantial part of the province. It is time for us non-aboriginals to show some respect.

I will show respect when they earn it, and here is how they can do that:

1. Vote to destroy the Indian Act

2. Get off the reserves and live on their own two feet

3. Stop spending taxpayer dollars on booze and personal enjoyment (I am not stereotyping this, I know many natives who dont do this but I also know many many more who do)

If they did that, I would respect them alot more. Look at the Asians, there is no 'Asian Act' and they are doing just fine. In fact they are doing better than most caucasions around here =p

Left-wing protection of Natives merely shows disrespect for them, they are human beings capable of taking care of themselves. You shame them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Treaties can be broken, in fact it is common for them TO be broken. Get over it, ...

That's just silly.

When a fire consumes your home, do you expect your insurer to say "Hey, get over it" when they deny your coverage?

[Hawk]

Treaties can be broken, in fact it is common for them TO be broken. Get over it, ...

That's just silly.

When a fire consumes your home, do you expect your insurer to say "Hey, get over it" when they deny your coverage?

Your example lacks in many areas to take into account the situation, and thereby is a very poor analogy.

1. We pay the insurance company for the coverage, natives dont pay us, we pay them.

2. We are talking about a treaty not an insurance policy

3. There are clauses in the insurance coverage that sometimes allow them to say 'hey get over it' there are no such clauses in our 'treaties'

[The Terrible Sweal]

...

1. We pay the insurance company for the coverage, natives dont pay us, we pay them.

2. We are talking about a treaty not an insurance policy

3. There are clauses in the insurance coverage that sometimes allow them to say 'hey get over it' there are no such clauses in our 'treaties'

1. We were talking about treaties ... legally binding arrangements between parties for agreed consideration. Our government agreed to the consideration in the treaties and therefor YES, the contracting aboriginal peoples DID indeed 'pay'.

2. I fail to see what distinction you are attempting to make between two types of agreements. Insurance policies, treaties, cargo haulage contracts, whatever ... they are all agreements by which parties are bound.

3. This point actually detracts from your position and favors mine.

[Hawk]

1.  We were talking about treaties ... legally binding arrangements between parties for agreed consideration.  Our government agreed to the consideration in the treaties and therefor YES, the contracting aboriginal peoples DID indeed 'pay'.

No you were talking about a house being burned down and the insurance guy not paying out, yet you tried using it to compare to Natives being paid because of the treaties. But anyways I know what you are trying to say, but as I said agreements are cancelled all the time. You cancel subscriptions, phone plans, etc etc, all those are also legally binding agreements. In the event of a contract the paying party is the only one allowed to back out of it (in most cases), so therefore in that case the government is the paying party and can cancel the agreement legally according to your logic of comparison.

2.  I fail to see what distinction you are attempting to make between two types of agreements.  Insurance policies, treaties, cargo haulage contracts, whatever ... they are all agreements by which parties are bound.

You brought them up, not I. All I was doing is show you how they aren't good examples for supporting you, because all those agreements can be legally broken.

3.  This point actually detracts from your position and favors mine.

I am afraid it far from does that, you just can't seem to grasp your own flip-flopping

[The Terrible Sweal]

I begin to suspect you are not paying very close attention to posts. We were talking about treaties, not houses burning down. Household insurance was an example for analogy and I might as easily have chosen any other legal agreement.

You're suggestion that contracts are always and only terminable by the "paying" party is, simply wrong. For example, try terminating a car lease before it's due ... you still have to pay. Contracts involve mutual obligations. They are terminable by a party only according to the terms specified within them. The treaties are no different and as you pointed out contain no termination clauses.

In addition, you have failed to acknowledge the point that the native parties to the treaties have paid what they owed under the contract.

I have no clue what to make of the remainder of your arguments, so I leave them aside.

[Sully]

This is a complex issue, but I am all for equality and not segregation, like most of these issues promote.

Its funny Canada proclaims to be a country of equality yet we are far from it. The government should not be sanctioning rights for others to have over the rest of the population period. And allowing Natives to have a fishery over other non natives is bs and yes discriminatory. MS you talk of respect, respect has to go both ways.

[Hawk]

I begin to suspect you are not paying very close attention to posts.  We were talking about treaties, not houses burning down.  Household insurance was an example for analogy and I might as easily have chosen any other legal agreement.

Your right we WERE talking about treaties then you went and said this:

That's just silly.

When a fire consumes your home, do you expect your insurer to say "Hey, get over it" when they deny your coverage?

So please stop trying to blame me for a pathetic analogy

You're suggestion that contracts are always and only terminable by the "paying" party is, simply wrong.  For example, try terminating a car lease before it's due ... you still have to pay.  Contracts involve mutual obligations.  They are terminable by a party only according to the terms specified within them.  The treaties are no different and as you pointed out contain no termination clauses.

I never said always, I said '(in most cases)'. Which is true, of course in certain contracts that is not possible. You tried bringing in civilian contracts and use them as proof that we should stick with legal agreements such as treaties. Very very bad idea, I suggest we just forget the whole mess because it is getting nowhere.

Regarding the termination of treaties, this may surprise you but I agree that treaties should not be terminated.. however they are and can be, which is what I have been arguing all along. Do I believe that the treaty has outlived itself? Yes, in the original treaty the amount we pay them is single-digit, is that really worth all the trouble? I know natives who work for me get payments of around 5 dollars per YEAR as a result of the treaty. It isn't even worth paying the people to send the cheques out =p

Its incredibly wasteful and needs to be ended, also the Indian Act needs to be destroyed so that the natives can truly become equal with the rest of Canada and thereby also get rid of a majority of the 'discrimination' that is directed at them.

In addition, you have failed to acknowledge the point that the native parties to the treaties have paid what they owed under the contract.

As have we, you dont think that treaties over a hundred years old have paid themselves out yet? Also if the natives want their land back they can try and take it You see, they were the conquered and we were the conquerers.

[takeanumber]

What's wrong with letting first nations determine their own fate within Canada?

@Hawk: Your attitude towards the first nations is very typical of a recent immigrant. If you're not a recent immigrant, than its worse, because the source of your ignorance isn't naivity inasmuch as it's bigotry. I suggest you take a look at how we've treated our aboriginal allies after past wars -- you know -- get educated about Canadian history, and then come back to this thread and comment.

Your statements so far suggest that you're merely ignorant, and not a bigot.

[Sully]

I suggest you take a look at how we've treated our aboriginal allies after past wars -- you know -- get educated about Canadian history, and then come back to this thread and comment.

Your statements so far suggest that you're merely ignorant, and not a bigot.

What is with always bringing up historical treatment, what does that have to do with PRESENT DAY treatment by our government.

I mean there are somethings that need to be resolved together with aboriginals and our govt. There are also many things where aboriginals need to be far more responsible for their own situations.

As far as the historical context issue its far overused I stress that you can look throughout all of the world's history and see that EVERY group at some point was mistreated at the hands of the other. But thats not useful today, because then we should all seek compensation from all these groups whoever hurt our ancestors, its silly time to move on. I do not agree with all Hawks points but in some cases tip toeing round the truth is stupid, at least he states what he means and for the most part I agree with him.

[caesar]

I believe that most treaties have not yet been signed. That is the problem. They do try to claim most of BC; that doesn't mean that they will get most of BC. They always had fishing rights; I think the commercial fishing rights are new. It did used to be illegal to buy fish from the natives. I imagine it still is unless they have the commercial licenses.

[takeanumber]

You know Sully, it's so easy for the victor to say "it happened a long time ago, let's get over it."

It's what an unapologetic German or Austrian says to a Jew.

It's what an in-denial Turk says to an Armenian.

It's what a proud Indonesian says to an East Timorese.

It's what an unrepentant Japanese citizen says to a Korean.

It's what an ignorant Brit says to a Chinese citizen.

There can be no healing until the wrong has been acknowledged.

There can be no justice until the evil is expressed.

There can be no final settlement until these salves have been applied to wound, and allowed to heal.

Unless the salves are applied, there can be no healing, only festering, puss-filled, infected wounds, which continue to knaw at the victim nation for years.

Let's acknowledge the injustice, and move to fix it. Only then will the first nations be allowed to heal properly and emerge strong enough to take charge of their own destinies.

Let's not do this in-denial bullshiat where we poo-poo the evil we've done and try portray white people (and recent immigrants) as victims.

It's insulting to them, and worse, it's demeaning to every proper Canadian.