First nations patiences waning

[Keepitsimple]

Attawaspiskat, Kaschechewan and several other remote, disfunctional communities should be disbanded and moved somewhere where their people have a fighting chance to survive with some degree of dignity. I've said it before - the Assemblay of First Nations should be doing more to help their own people - identifying which reserves work well, which ones are marginal, and which ones are completely disfunctional. We need a big fat broom. The excuse that some of these remote communities are "at one with the land" is mostly hogwash. We can't help them anymore until they begin to help themselves......and the media are the worst culprits - drumming up Attawaspikat-like stories year after year after year, decade after decade. Money thrown down the drain on reservations that have no chance of thriving. When you can't own your own property, you don't give a crap what happens to it. When you live in a rathole that has no population, no diversity, no stores, no entertianment, and no jobs - you're just recycling drinking and abuse, year after year. It's disgusting - and until the First Nations admit that their culture is broken and that many reservations should be moved or combined, we'll just perpetuate the problem. I'm hopeful that the next Tory majority will deal head-on with this crisis.

[Merlin]

natives have suffered debilitating illness as a result of water quality caused by industrial pollution in the pulp and oil industries to name two. people have been destroyed by water contamination, now the pm is supporting more first nations be maimed via water contamination.

Native bands get Billions of dollars every year surely they could put some aside to look after their own people instead of lining their pockets. If the bands were responsible with their money they could provide clean water for their people but they choose not to do that. That's why such a huge outcry for the bands to open their books so we can see how our tax dollars are being spent. And if they are being spent properly.

The regular native person living on a reserve needs to start questioning their own band leadership and stop thinking that they are automatically doing a good job.

[Sleipnir]

unilateral action effecting native reserves without consultation is unethical and unconstitutional

Source?

[login]

reasearch the subject a bit and you will find your anwsers. you are coming off as uneducated rednecks.

you people would need to take highschool civics and history before i got into the legal stuff.

you are all just full of ignorance and hate for status indians

Edited December 28, 2012 by login

[login]

get over tbe fact they have more rights than you because the land is theirs ancestorally not yours. live with it but stop lying to yourself

Edited December 28, 2012 by login

[Moonbox]

Ancestral land means absolutely jack all. The Treaties are the only thing that matter, and they have expiration dates believe it or not. Perhaps the treaties themselves don't but their relevance and moral authority certainly do. Eventually, the ancestors of the aboriginals who signed the Treaties will be so far removed in terms of time, culture, lifestyle and even genes that it'll be hard to really distinguish who they are. Disputed lands will have been occupied for so long by real Canadians that ancestrally, it will be more their land than the aboriginals' who claim it. You can also rest assured that immigrants moving to the country (our main source of population growth) really don't give a rat shit about aboriginal land claims.

[betsy]

Maybe the PM and the GG ought to sit down and talk about the outdated treaties. Revise the treatise to reflect the new 21st century reality!

Edited December 28, 2012 by betsy

[login]

Ancestral land means absolutely jack all. The Treaties are the only thing that matter, and they have expiration dates believe it or not. Perhaps the treaties themselves don't but their relevance and moral authority certainly do. Eventually, the ancestors of the aboriginals who signed the Treaties will be so far removed in terms of time, culture, lifestyle and even genes that it'll be hard to really distinguish who they are. Disputed lands will have been occupied for so long by real Canadians that ancestrally, it will be more their land than the aboriginals' who claim it. You can also rest assured that immigrants moving to the country (our main source of population growth) really don't give a rat shit about aboriginal land claims.

your view is criminal

protection of native treaty is constitutionally protected.

thats the law.

this much like me saying your head is has passed its best before date.

read some documents like this before your spew your ignorant baseless views

http://www.naho.ca/d...s/DP_rights.pdf

fraud is a crime, abetting fraud is also a crime and that is what you are doing

Edited December 28, 2012 by login

[Rocky Road]

Idle no more could get violent

[cybercoma]

Maybe the PM and the GG ought to sit down and talk about the outdated treaties. Revise the treatise to reflect the new 21st century reality!

Maybe your boss should sit down with one of their colleagues and rewrite your work contract too. They can just let you know what those changes will be. They don't need your input.

[cybercoma]

your view is criminal

protection of native treaty is constitutionally protected.

thats the law.

this much like me saying your head is has passed its best before date.

read some documents like this before your spew your ignorant baseless views

http://www.naho.ca/d...s/DP_rights.pdf

fraud is a crime, abetting fraud is also a crime and that is what you are doing

Imagine if the government just did away with other parts of the constitution and charter that severely affected other Canadians. Imagine if there were people calling upon the government to just rip up the term limits sections for instance, or maybe habeas corpus, or the right to communicate in and be served in English when dealing with the federal government.

Oh, but it's ok to deal with First Nations that way. Their treaty rights that exist because this is their land that we've leased is just too inconvenient these days, so we'll just rip up the contract. Forget meeting and negotiating with them. Forget coming to mediated resolutions.

Edited December 28, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Imagine if the government just did away with other parts of the constitution and charter that severely affected other Canadians. Imagine if there were people calling upon the government to just rip up the term limits sections for instance, or maybe habeas corpus, or the right to communicate in and be served in English when dealing with the federal government.

There's a difference. Those are parts of the constitution that serve to equalize all of us. They have no expiry, or an end to their usefulness.

[TimG]

Their treaty rights that exist because this is their land that we've leased is just too inconvenient these days, so we'll just rip up the contract.

I am really sick of this revisionist history crap.

1) Treaties meant Natives ceded all rights to their land. There is no 'lease'. The land does not 'belong' to them. Obviously there are cases where land was annexed without a treaty and Canada needs to negotiate a settlement but such examples do not excuse your pathetic attempt to misrepresent history.

2) When the treaties were signed the natives groups were self supporting. They provided their own food, shelter, education and healthcare. Since then Canadian governments have expanded the scope of native treaty rights to include all of those things even though the original British signers would have been appalled. IOW - the treaties have been changed to suit modern times in ways that benefit the natives. Therefore it is completely reasonable to expect them to change in ways to benefit the non-native majority as well.

3) Lastly, native treaties are racist constructs from an era when racism was them norm. The idea that a subset of the population should receive special rights simply because they have a certain DNA is incompatible with the values of a modern democracy. Note that I am talking about the special rights such as exemptions to laws that govern all other Canadians. If natives want to hold their land in a collective trust and pass ownership in this trust to their children then they are entitled to - but the laws governing ownership and taxation should be same as every other Canadian.

That said, I am aware that courts have upheld the racist premises embodied the treaties and it would require a next-to-impossible constitutional change to rectify the problem. However, that does not make them any less racist. There are few things that I find more disgusting that native rights advocates who call anyone who questions the morality of the treaties a 'racist'. It is pure psychological projection on their part because the only racists here are the people defending these abominations called treaties.

Edited December 28, 2012 by TimG

[Smallc]

Excellent post.

[Canuckistani]

I agree. Not sure how we ever move past this tho. Doubt we'd ever find the consensus to change the constitution unless it comes to the point where the FN's really po the ROC. So within the legal constraints we have, what do we do?

[cybercoma]

1) Treaties meant Natives ceded all rights to their land.

No they didn't. The Supreme Court has said as much. Take it up with the SCC.

2) When the treaties were signed the natives groups were self supporting.

No they weren't. They signed those treaties well after Europeans' activities in Canada were affecting their way of life. So that's not at all true. And even if it were true. It doesn't matter. The only reason they're having trouble being self-sufficient is due to our use of their lands.

3) Lastly, native treaties are racist constructs from an era when racism was them norm.

The only racism here is the ethnocentric racism of those from European heritages that believe the time limit has expired on their ancestors' agreements with the First Nations. The belief that you can make deals with a nation, then turn around a century later and rip up that agreement because you are not your parents. What's racist is not consulting with the other party to come to a mediated compromise as a way of moving forward, but instead deciding unilaterally that they are no longer worth consulting with because they are "inferior" to our institutions and must be subordinate to us. So don't sit here and tell me the treaties are racist constructs, when you want to force upon the First Nations top-down solutions, without their input, based on the racist notion that we and our institutions are superior to them and theirs.

[TimG]

No they didn't. The Supreme Court has said as much. Take it up with the SCC.

Prove it. Show me the judgement.

No they weren't. They signed those treaties well after Europeans' activities in Canada were affecting their way of life.

So? 'affecting their way of life' is not the same as saying they were not self supporting. When the treaties were signed the natives built their own housing. They did not expect the colonial government to do it for them. Yet they do now. Show me the treaty signed in the 1800s that obliges the Canadian government to do that?

The belief that you can make deals with a nation, then turn around a century later and rip up that agreement because you are not your parents.

First. The idea that native bands are 'nations' equal to the US or China is laughable nonsense. They are Canadians who are granted special rights for historical reasons. The only rights they have are those granted by Canadian law and Canadian courts. The SCC has made it clear that Canada is the sovereign power and native rights exist within that context. Edited December 28, 2012 by TimG

[Argus]

your view is criminal

protection of native treaty is constitutionally protected.

thats the law.

this much like me saying your head is has passed its best before date.

read some documents like this before your spew your ignorant baseless views

http://www.naho.ca/d...s/DP_rights.pdf

fraud is a crime, abetting fraud is also a crime and that is what you are doing

Every now and then I see posts which cause me to wonder about whether they are written in jest or in some delirious state due to the absence of proper medication.

[Argus]

3) Lastly, native treaties are racist constructs from an era when racism was them norm. The idea that a subset of the population should receive special rights simply because they have a certain DNA is incompatible with the values of a modern democracy.

The whole point of the treaties was that natives needed to have somewhere to live because it was inconceivable that such savages could live among the civilized white folks. It is an absurd relic of a bygone era and the treaties and reservations should be junked.

[Smallc]

The whole point of the treaties was that natives needed to have somewhere to live because it was inconceivable that such savages could live among the civilized white folks. It is an absurd relic of a bygone era and the treaties and reservations should be junked.

And the fact that people defend the status quo is rather insane.

[dre]

The treaties were never really signed in good faith. Creating a society where all people are equal and are seen as such under the law would probably be worth it even if they were though. Times have changed.

But thats not what your plan would do. It would not only infuriate natives, but millions of other Canadians as well, and it would call into question the willingness of the Canadian government to honor its treaties and contracts and the rule of law.

[Smallc]

But thats not what your plan would do.

So what's the answer? There is, realistically, only one long term answer.

[dre]

So what's the answer? There is, realistically, only one long term answer.

The answer is to try to negotiate new treaties, which is basically what we are doing now with mixed success.

[Smallc]

The answer is to try to negotiate new treaties, which is basically what we are doing now with mixed success.

No, that isn't the answer, because it still presupposes that aboriginal people are somehow different...and they aren't. The only long term solution is for aboriginal people to realize that the treaties do nothing for them....and this is coming from someone who makes a great deal of money off of the status quo.

[Moonbox]

your view is criminal

protection of native treaty is constitutionally protected.

thats the law.

Your logic is criminal. Your understanding of the law and the Constitution is also rather sad. A view can't be criminal. The Constitution is subject to limitations clauses and, believe it or not, can be amended.

this much like me saying your head is has passed its best before date.

Nice try at the analogy, except it was moronic.

read some documents like this before your spew your ignorant baseless views

http://www.naho.ca/d...s/DP_rights.pdf

fraud is a crime, abetting fraud is also a crime and that is what you are doing

Wow...I forget how much I missed chartered.rights. until I read this. Clearly the education system let you down. I don't even know where to start. First, wtf is that link for? Linking a PDF essay without any commentary is pretty stupid. Second, you don't even know what fraud is, or how it's prosecuted. You're not even close. I can only mirror Argus' sentiments and wonder where things went wrong for you.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Moonbox