First nations patiences waning

[cybercoma]

That's funny...I thought I asked Cyber for an answer.

PS....the land claims were a result of bleeding heart courts. Not the treaties. Show me in the treaties where the contract was broken. Oh that's right...you can't!!!! I can quote you numerous parts where natives have broken the treaties but you won't hear that stuff with your head in the sand.

Convenient. I've been ignoring your question because it has been answered in this thread several times already. Jacee has answered you again and it's quite obvious that you're just going to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the responses anyway. I can't be bothered having a discussion with someone that's not interested in recognizing the fact that the courts have already decided that agreements have not been honoured. Your response, "they're bleeding hearts," just shows that you don't care about the facts, but are more interested in indigenous bashing. Well, I'm not interested in discussing these things with closed-minded people that ignore the legal facts with ridiculous ad hominem claims about our judicial system.

[jacee]

Well, I'm not interested in discussing these things with closed-minded people that ignore the legal facts with ridiculous ad hominem claims about our judicial system.

It's curious ... A N and Sharkman and perhaps other deniers who imply that Indigenous Peoples should just get over the past, forget 'treaties' and forget the Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution, and just be part of Canada.

But Canada is defined by treaties, Supreme Court law, the Constitution ... So ... It leads me to question ... What country do these deniers think they belong to?

Because they certainly don't belong to the Canada that existed historically and evolved through treaties, courts and constitutional law into the Canada of today.

It's bizarre really. They don't respect what Canada really is but expect others to toe the line and be part of some mythical country that doesn't even exist.

It's incredibly sad, this lack of knowledge of their own country by people who presume to tell others how to be Canadian.

Or maybe it's just funny!

Edited February 18, 2013 by jacee

[jbg]

It's curious ... A N and Sharkman and perhaps other deniers who imply that Indigenous Peoples should just get over the past, forget 'treaties' and forget the Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution, and just be part of Canada.

But Canada is defined by treaties, Supreme Court law, the Constitution ... So ... It leads me to question ... What country do these deniers think they belong to?***********************************

Or maybe it's just funny!

What is far from funny is what would happen to the FN's in many reserves such as Attawapiskat if Canada literally adhered to the treaties. There would be mass starvation.

How's that for a "modest proposal.".¹

¹Reference to Jonathan Swift deliberate but probably over your head

[jacee]

What is far from funny is what would happen to the FN's in many reserves such as Attawapiskat if Canada literally adhered to the treaties. There would be mass starvation.

How's that for a "modest proposal.".¹

¹Reference to Jonathan Swift deliberate but probably over your head

You're being ridiculous.

[Accountability Now]

Convenient. I've been ignoring your question because it has been answered in this thread several times already. Jacee has answered you again and it's quite obvious that you're just going to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the responses anyway. I can't be bothered having a discussion with someone that's not interested in recognizing the fact that the courts have already decided that agreements have not been honoured. Your response, "they're bleeding hearts," just shows that you don't care about the facts, but are more interested in indigenous bashing. Well, I'm not interested in discussing these things with closed-minded people that ignore the legal facts with ridiculous ad hominem claims about our judicial system.

You are the one throwing bullshit comments about business deals and breaking contracts but you don't have the first clue about how to back it up. Save your long winded rants for Jacee.

You want to talk about breaking business deals? How about those dipshits up in Attiwapiskst making a true business deal with De Beers. 85% of the band voted the deal in which gave millions to the band ( most of which funneled to Spence). But now they block the road because one guy didn't get his cut from the band? And how is that De Beers fault? They sure have their hands out now that the mine is doing well but if the mine had lost money? Would they be there to chip in?

You guys speak of honor and what it is to be Canadian but who know nothing of it. Canadians are not victims. We are hard working people who look inwards to find solutions and not for handouts. The FN should become their own nation as they are nothing like Canadians! Jacee and Cyber can go live with them!

[jbg]

You're being ridiculous.

That's very profound but maybe you can expand on it.

[jacee]

The FN should become their own nation as they are nothing like Canadians! Jacee and Cyber can go live with them!

Well, I guess it's pretty clear you've run out of anything remotely resembling logical arguments.

Every Canadian has the responsibility to understand the foundations of Canada.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are an integral part of what Canada is.

[Sleipnir]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/14/report-alleging-rcmp-officers-raped-abused-aboriginal-women-far-fetched-even-for-b-c/

Some of the claims made in the Human Right Watch report raises this author's eyebrows on the credibility of the stories.

Anyone remember Evan Maud?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/12/17/mb-starlight-tour-allegations-addressed-maud-winnipeg.html

[jbg]

What is far from funny is what would happen to the FN's in many reserves such as Attawapiskat if Canada literally adhered to the treaties. There would be mass starvation.

How's that for a "modest proposal.".¹

¹Reference to Jonathan Swift deliberate but probably over your head

You're being ridiculous.

That's very profound but maybe you can expand on it.

Well, I guess it's pretty clear you've run out of anything remotely resembling logical arguments.

I guess you're tongue-tied on my point.

[jacee]

I guess you're tongue-tied on my point.

I didn't notice that you had a "point".

[jbg]

I didn't notice that you had a "point".

My point is obvious; literal compliance with treaties would doom the band to a horrible death. Maybe not for Spence though.

[jacee]

My point is obvious; literal compliance with treaties would doom the band to a horrible death.

The legal interpretation by the Supreme Court isn't literal:

Ancestral practices, traditions and customs are understood in light of their corresponding modern common law right. Courts asked to identify an aboriginal right will "examine the pre-sovereignty aboriginal practice and translate that practice into a modern legal right." [R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220 at para 51].

http://www.constitutional-law.net/Division%20of%20Powers%20Topics%20-%20Aboriginal%20Peoples.htm

[jbg]

The legal interpretation by the Supreme Court isn't literal:

Ancestral practices, traditions and customs are understood in light of their corresponding modern common law right. Courts asked to identify an aboriginal right will "examine the pre-sovereignty aboriginal practice and translate that practice into a modern legal right." [R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220 at para 51].

http://www.constitut...nal Peoples.htm

In other words the SCOC makes up the law as it goes along?

[jacee]

In other words the SCOC makes up the law as it goes along?

The courts interpret and apply laws, and the clarifying decisions become law.

I doubt this is news to you.

[gunrutz]

You mean liberal judges apointed by liberals in our liberal justice systme made a typically paternalisticly liberal decision? Say it ain't so. This is why we have situations where native people are allowed to carry on a traditional fishery without any limits or government oversight while using power boats and gill nets, equipment they wouldn't have without us, and then sell that comerically, it's killing some of our inland lakes, but no one cares, and everyone is afraid to stand up to them and the BULLSHIT liberal thinking that allows it.

But hey, those people who live a modern life liek us, subject to the same vices of want and greed, they would never over fish, becuase they care too much for the land, a bullshit lie and the very essence of paternalism.

[Accountability Now]

Go ahead.

Here is the obvious one which is reflective of the recent blockades:

"They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law, and they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tracts, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tracts, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tracts, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so cede"

The treaties also explicitly state that the natives would cede and give up all rights to the said land. Also, the natives are to be good loyal subjects to the Crown. Yet...they want sovereignty and to own their own land.

Broken treaties on the natives part.

Let me guess...some conspiracty theory will be your answer!

Edited February 19, 2013 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

Well, I guess it's pretty clear you've run out of anything remotely resembling logical arguments.

I've run out of anything remotely logical to say to you because you don't understand the language of logic. Remember...you are the person that said the entire RCMP AND Interpol are corrupt. You continually side step questions and will answer with conspiracy theory answers. I have given up on you being even close to a reasonable person and any hope for an informative debate. It is very obvious that your answers are circles which never really answer anything except the fact that you live in a cloud of conspiracy theories. How do you find the courage to make it out of your house in the morning? It must be a very scary world in your eyes with everyone out to get you.

[jacee]

Here is the obvious one which is reflective of the recent blockades:

"They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law, and they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tracts, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tracts, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tracts, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so cede"

The treaties also explicitly state that the natives would cede and give up all rights to the said land. Also, the natives are to be good loyal subjects to the Crown. Yet...they want sovereignty and to own their own land.

Broken treaties on the natives part.

Let me guess...some conspiracty theory will be your answer!

This appears to be Treaty 3?

http://www.gct3.net/grand-chiefs-office/gct3-info-and-history/government-of-canada-document/

Note that they didn't give up "all" rights:

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described ...

IE, They retain the right to sustain themselves from the 'surrendered' land.

As for 'interfering', it works both ways:

All of the treaties were preceded by the Royal Proclamation 1763, containing this passage:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them or any of them as their Hunting Grounds, We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of Our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida, or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments, as described in their Commissions ;

...

Now it's chicken-egg, who disturbed who first ...

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation daycare centre, next to a Dow Chemical refinery, "Where opportunity begins."

http://www.axisofeco.com/wrong/2010/01/21/canada%E2%80%99s-greatest-eco-embarrassments/

. It wouldnt happen like this if there was proper enforcement of aboriginal laws and our constitutional treaty rights.

Toxic pollution affecting downstream people in Fort Chipewyan and Serpent River are just two examples of a long history of more relaxed environmental restrictions on industrial operations near First Nations communities. Take Aamjiwnaang, near Sarnia, Ontario: The reserve is internationally known for having one of the lowest birth rates of boys the world over, which scientists suspect is related to the petrochemical factories that surround their land.

In fact, the proximity of industrially intensive operations near First Nations communities and the lax regulations controlling their emissions is so commonplace that it is often known by another name: environmental racism.

A small symbolic industrial blockade for a few days?

Seems reasonable to me.

Edited February 19, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them or any of them as their Hunting Grounds

I find it ironic that the activists use a document which clearly establishes the sovereignty of the British crown over their territories as a basis for their so called rights.

[Accountability Now]

This appears to be Treaty 3?

http://www.gct3.net/grand-chiefs-office/gct3-info-and-history/government-of-canada-document/

This actually appears in most if not all the treaties from 1-11. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028653/1100100028654

It works both ways:

All of the treaties were preceded by the Royal Proclamation 1763, containing this passage:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies....

You obviously didn't read the first part of your quote so I erased everything after it. Wheras its is just and reasonable AND ESSENTIAL TO OUR INTEREST....is basically a notwithstanding clause meaning: We will try our best but the interests of the Crown come first. So if that means putting up plants or other industrial plants nearby then so be it.

Don't get me wrong....its not a fair and equitable arrangment but it was the arrangement that was made. Natives seem to romantacize about their past and how the treaties were equally negotiated and agreed to. The truth is these agreements were hammered down their throats and heavily favored the Crown. The intent of Crown was to assmilate these people and not have to spend money on killing or moving them. I read somewhere that the cost for all the treaties and settlents at the time cost the British $750,000 whereas the actions the US took to handle their natives cost them $20 million. The Brits were just trying to forcefully persuade the natives to give up. To the credit of the native people...they have never given up. Having said that, the original proclomation and treaties are still geared and have language that favors the Crown. So to answer your question....there is no chicken and the egg. You can't accuse the Crown of molesting their lands because they never said they wouldn't....they said they would try not to.

Further to your cited examples....do you actually think that reserves are the only place that sit next to industrial locations? There are communities all across the country that have industrial plants right next to communities who then suffer from contmination and pollution. This is not something the Crown has done to the FN...they do it to everyone.

A small symbolic industrial blockade for a few days?

Seems reasonable to me.

"A" small sybmobic blocade? Its been numerous blockades over many years.

Do you think its reasonable that the Attiwapiskat people are blockading the De Beer mine?

[jacee]

We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them or any of them as their Hunting Grounds

I find it ironic that the activists use a document which clearly establishes the sovereignty of the British crown over their territories as a basis for their so called rights.

It's part of the laws of Canada. Edited February 19, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

It's part of the laws of Canada.

It also establishes Canada as the sole sovereign entity and that all rights that natives hold are within the context of Canada as the sovereign entity.

Edited February 19, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

It also establishes Canada as the sole sovereign entity and that all rights that natives hold are within the context of Canada as the sovereign entity.

Canada has three founding peoples - Indigenous, French, British - and three legal traditions

Aboriginal Law

French Civil Code

British Common Law

How we respect and incorporate all three defines us as Canadians.

Imo.

[jacee]

"A" small sybmobic blocade? Its been numerous blockades over many years.

Do you think its reasonable that the Attiwapiskat people are blockading the De Beer mine?

I'm not sure I buy your interpretation of the treaty.

I'd rather leave that to the courts.

Same with DeBeers/ Attawapiskat: I'll leave that to them to work out ... and the province, as the duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal rights rests with them too.

[Accountability Now]

I'm not sure I buy your interpretation of the treaty.

I'd rather leave that to the courts.

Same with DeBeers/ Attawapiskat: I'll leave that to them to work out ... and the province, as the duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal rights rests with them too.

That's funny. I can tell when you're defeated. We weren't discussing how the courts would interpret, we were discussing the original objective wording. Like many orther native protesters, Cybercoma said that the Crown has broken the treaties. That was when I posed the question of which treaty. The fact is that the Crown has not broken the treaties but may have broken the courts interpretation of the treaties.

As for De Beers...I was really hoping would would step out of your shell. Attiwapiskst accepted the De Beers deal with 85% approval. The people blockading feel they haven't been compensated enough. This is very black and white and does not need the courts interpretation to show the blockades are offside. If the mine would have lost money, would they be there to chip in? Now that the mine is making money they have their hand out. You have to agree this example is hypocritical and sets a poor example for FN.