First nations patiences waning

[gunrutz]

Absolutely correct.

No, we arent using your land, we took your land, we pretended to negotiate with you, and now we are keeping it, welcome to how the world works.

[jacee]

No, we arent using your land, we took your land, we pretended to negotiate with you, and now we are keeping it, welcome to how the world works.

Not according to the Supreme Court - ie, the law.

Sorry gunrutz ... you're just plain wrong, morally, ethically ... and legally:

the Supreme Court … held that the constitutional affirmation of Aboriginal rights should be interpreted in the light of the fundamental principle of the honour of the Crown.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572569

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[PIK]

Maybe you should stop sucking off of native land. Thats been happening a lot longer than natives getting 'handouts' you know there is a reason they do. Because the land you use is theirs.

Before they had thier ''nation'' The different tribes were raping , pilliaging and slaughtering other tribes and taking thier land . Then our tribe came and we took the land. So really it is our land.

[jacee]

Before they had thier ''nation'' The different tribes were raping , pilliaging and slaughtering other tribes and taking thier land . Then our tribe came and we took the land. So really it is our land.

That's an uninformed and incorrect opinion, inconsistent with Canadian law.

We made peace treaties that allow us to share their land. That's the law ... Canadian law.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

Aboriginal rights exist at their local organization level as well as internationally.

UN declarations mean diddly. The rights that natives have in Canada only exist because of Canadian law and are enforced by the Canadian courts. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

You are just being fascist. You can't accept natives have their rights because they existed before Canada did.

Right. I happen to point out that the legal basis for native rights depends entirely on the Canadian legal framework and that makes me a facist. More unhelpful rhetoric that pisses people off that would normally be inclined to compromise.

It is sad you have to resort to use of force to rob people of their land. If we can agree it can be shared for mutual benefit. It was all about trade not ownership.

Who is advocating force? I am simply stating the historical realities. Canada exists. It is the sovereign power. Natives have rights that exist under that umbrella. Edited December 12, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

"Properly" being the operative word.

Which is why I used it.

Canada/BNA didn't always follow or follow through "properly". That's why there are hundreds of outstanding 'specific land claims' for Aboriginal title, even where there are treaties and land was supposedly 'ceded'.

Sure. But not all of these claims have merit. Sometimes natives are simply trying to rewrite the historical record to suit themselves. But these disputes will be resolved eventually under Canadian law and by Canadian courts. And none of them change the fact that Canada is the sovereign power and any rights the natives have are part of Canadian law. Edited December 12, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

UN declarations mean diddly. The rights that natives have in Canada only exist because of Canadian law and are enforced by the Canadian courts. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Right. I happen to point out that the legal basis for native rights depends entirely on the Canadian legal framework and that makes me a facist. More unhelpful rhetoric that pisses people off that would normally be inclined to compromise.

Who is advocating force? I am simply stating the historical realities. Canada exists. It is the sovereign power. Natives have rights that exist under that umbrella.

I agree to some extent that arguing about 'sovereignty' isn't constructive. (Neither are personal attacks.)

The 'state' is Canada ... but Canada is not just a creature of British law.

Canada is a country of three founding nations and three legal systems: Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code, and British Common Law.

Canada's sovereignty rests in all three.

Arguing for domination of one is inaccurate and divisive.

Collaboration, respect and cooperation are necessary to a balanced approach to resolution of many issues, in particular, Aboriginal rights under discussion here.

And that is lacking in the federal government's approach, resulting in the current impatience of First Nations leaders.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[Smallc]

This country's legal, political, and judicial system is largely based in commonwealth tradition. To argue otherwise is to deny reality. Regardless, the statement that TimG made in relation to aboriginal rights existing only within Canadian law is completely true.

[jacee]

This country's legal, political, and judicial system is largely based in commonwealth tradition. To argue otherwise is to deny reality. Regardless, the statement that TimG made in relation to aboriginal rights existing only within Canadian law is completely true.

Canadian law includes Aboriginal law.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[Smallc]

Canadian law is completely fluid.

[Canuckistani]

Maybe you should stop sucking off of native land. Thats been happening a lot longer than natives getting 'handouts' you know there is a reason they do. Because the land you use is theirs.

And you don't? You going back to whatever continent you or your ancestors came from, or did the Indigenous Peoples of Canada issue you a special invitation to stay? They lost that land to Canada. They have full rights in Canada, same as the rest of us. As I've said, if they need money to transition to living the way the rest of us do, fine. But BC is 110% covered in land claims. Doesn't leave much room for us white men, does it?

[jacee]

http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=7683764

OTTAWA — Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan is offering to meet this week with a northern Ontario chief who embarked on a hunger strike Tuesday out of frustration with the federal government.

Chief Theresa Spence of the remote Attawapiskat First Nation launched her protest with a vow to “die” unless the Conservative government starts showing more respect to First Nations concerns and aboriginal treaties.

Spence wants the Crown, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and aboriginal leaders to work together to forge a new relationship.

An offer was extended last week to have Duncan’s parliamentary secretary visit Attawapiskat to ensure the reserve has what it needs to get through the winter, said Jan O’Driscoll, a spokesman for the minister.

“We continue to look forward to her response,” O’Driscoll said.

Duncan would also be prepared to meet Spence this week in Ottawa to discuss the state of her community, he added.

But the issues go well beyond Attawapiskat, Spence said in a statement.

The Harper government has embarked on an “aggressive, assimilatory legislative agenda” that flies in the face of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, she complained.

...

She says she wants the federal government to withdraw recent legislation which she claims was forced on aboriginals. She also wants it to reverse its decision to cut funding to First Nation organizations and communities.

Thousands of protesters in cities across the country took to the streets Monday in what has been dubbed the Idle No More movement against what they say are unilateral actions by the Harper government.

They are angry over a number of bills before Parliament, including one that would force First Nations to disclose their financial statements and the salaries of chiefs and councillors.

They are particularly upset with Bill C-45, the government’s omnibus budget legislation, which they say weakens environmental laws.

For Spence, the pain of watching her people suffer through a lack of housing and inadequate water supplies proved a tipping point.

“The treaty’s been violated (for) so many years and it’s time for the prime minister to honour it and respect our leaders,” said Spence, who is staying in a cabin on an island in the Ottawa River while she goes without food.

It's interesting that Duncan is responding so quickly this time.

However, his attempt to focus solely on Attawapiskat is an old federal ruse with an implied threat: If Chief Spence 'toes the line', there might be some 'help' for her community. If not, there might be some punishment.

I think these underhanded tactics are outdated.

The media now are not afraid to report the truth, and Canadians are no longer kept in the dark about our government's ruthlessness.

[Fletch 27]

Again, the REAL reason... Just kinda burried...

They are angry over a number of bills before Parliament, including one that would force First Nations to disclose their financial statements and the salaries of chiefs and councillors.

Theresa Spence is the same one that held Attawapiskat residents hostage with minimal housing and refusing to allow the 3rd party into manage/monitor expenditures. IMO, She does not care for her own people...

[jacee]

Again, the REAL reason... Just kinda burried...

They are angry over a number of bills before Parliament, including one that would force First Nations to disclose their financial statements and the salaries of chiefs and councillors.

Theresa Spence is the same one that held Attawapiskat residents hostage with minimal housing and refusing to allow the 3rd party into manage/monitor expenditures. IMO, She does not care for her own people...

Third party management was the feds punishment when Chief Spence spoke up last year.

[Canuckistani]

Duncan should offer to meet Spence over lunch. His treat, of course.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Canuckistani

[login]

And you don't? You going back to whatever continent you or your ancestors came from, or did the Indigenous Peoples of Canada issue you a special invitation to stay? They lost that land to Canada. They have full rights in Canada, same as the rest of us. As I've said, if they need money to transition to living the way the rest of us do, fine. But BC is 110% covered in land claims. Doesn't leave much room for us white men, does it?

I'm a natural person. (I don't dwell in the same statist existential system as you)

They didn't "lose" anything. It is their choice.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Canuckistani]

I'm a natural person.

????

They didn't "lose" anything. It is their choice.

?????

[login]

????

?????

People have the right of freedom of association.

True it is essentially martial law if civil discourse of free individuals fails, most people subject themselves overlordship. In an equal society we are peers, but binding law is only possible through consent to be ruled.

To clarify the natural person thing, fundamentally I do not support the concept of state control of individuals, and I live in accordance to that. But this is not about me, but the discussion was turned to me. I think association is fundamentally a situation of choice, and in a free society no one lords another. Democracy is only in place by free assocation. This is more a discussion point for political theory though, not first nations patience waning.

The only thing fundamentally required is to exercise reason.

I have to add my use of natural person does not directly associate with the natural person tax theory, although I do agree people do not need to pay taxes, but they will be attacked if they try to resist capture if they do not and it would create a state of war and a breach of the peace if they do not, because Canada is willing to kill people (and will commit genocide) against people who do not pay taxes they have on their list of tax payers if they resist force with force (you might say rebel/revolt but rebellion is not required for the free they are already seperate from the structure attacking them, seperate states). Sounds crazy but it is true.

The fundamental is to enslave all people they claim and make the subjects of the crown. (Sounds insane and is not practical for most people who are willing people of Canada) Fundamentally I am libertarian and that is what I support in my Canada, afterall we are entitled to our opinion, state infingement onthe invidual can only be upheld by self defence against oppression by the forces willing to suppress their government through malignant governance processes. They infringe individual liberties for their own agenda. Natural persons recognize that all humanity is under natural law as opposed to law made by oppressors that try to remove freedoms and individual rights for their own selfish gains, and they are willing to kill to insure people are enslaved to their rule but natural law allows individuals to be free, but they must be willing to defend their rights. In the past this was more possible due to available land though, today it creates more the notion of a David vs. a thousand Goliaths. they only come after you if you fall within their sphere of interest though, because they dominate all, and attack any who are not subjugated to their rule. That is just where the world is at.

As a natural person I defend my rights and am willing to die for my beleifs, not in an act of offence or aggression but as part of my fundamental right to exist as a free person that is not subjected to alien rule that violates my conscience. I am not above the law we are with the law, Canadian law however is "artificial" a fiction for persons who submit to Canadian rule. Life is diplomacy for me not beaurocracy. All people are individuals it is not a machine.

But to restate they will kill if we resist their enslavement of us or they will die a thousand Goliaths.

But life isn't about biology it is about experience and having good intent in your actions.

For me any tax payment is part of the cost of doing business, I don't file taxes, but sure I pay taxes when I buy goods. I don't attempt to evade tax payment I just wont be delegated to do work for the government via legal levy. I have invited the CRA to audit me, they wont and told me to just put anything I want on it and mail it in. Not required. I have no legal obligation to file taxes, but two scenarios exist.. 1. If I know I owe taxes, I need to pay (If i don't know I can presume I don't - as there is no ill intent or mens rhea to evade), 2. if I do owe I can choose to breach the peace and accept war with Canada if they opt to kill me if I resist payment. That is just the reality of it. Sure it is breaking the peace if I choose not to pay, but it is Canada breaking the peace by imposing their rule on me, I am not morally at fault. The Mennonites have this same sort of situation.

If I am not enfranchised, I do not have representation and it is a violation of my constitutinal rights and I am not bound to pay taxes due to the fundamentals of the Westminster system. The constitution and common law trump as they are supreme to Parliamentaty statute.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Fletch 27]

Third party management was the feds punishment when Chief Spence spoke up last year.

When her own people want to see here finances,, why wont she open up?

Is SHE the one whos making in excess of 850K/year??

I find the timing odd in relationship to the below.... Maybe a bit "fishy" if you will

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chiefs-deride-native-transparency-act/article4614583/

[Canuckistani]

People have the right of freedom of association.

True it is essentially martial law if civil discourse of free individuals fails, most people subject themselves overlordship. In an equal society we are peers, but binding law is only possible through consent to be ruled.

To clarify the natural person thing, fundamentally I do not support the concept of state control of individuals, and I live in accordance to that. But this is not about me, but the discussion was turned to me. I think association is fundamentally a situation of choice, and in a free society no one lords another. Democracy is only in place by free assocation. This is more a discussion point for political theory though, not first nations patience waning.

The only thing fundamentally required is to exercise reason.

I'm sorry, you've totally lost me. What you're saying doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion at hand. Or at least I don't see it. I asked you if you're leaving for the continent of your ancestors soon, since you say we're all living on stolen Indigenous Peoples' land.

[Moonbox]

Duncan should offer to meet Spence over lunch. His treat, of course.

Deep fried everything of course.

[Fletch 27]

Thats simply horrible.... Shes on a "Hunger strike" dont you know..... AKA- a diet

[login]

When her own people want to see here finances,, why wont she open up?

Is SHE the one whos making in excess of 850K/year??

I find the timing odd in relationship to the below.... Maybe a bit "fishy" if you will

http://www.theglobea...article4614583/

Cheifs have multiple roles, I'm not sure how this works out exactly.

That is definately a high salary but it likely includes multiple roles as well as other forms of renumeration.

“other” remuneration relates to all other sources of revenue – not just actual salaries... ...

The bottom line: AFN’s recalculation of the original figures provided to the CTF by

INAC confirms that no First Nation elected official in Canada earns more than the Prime

Minister. See:

http://www.afn.ca/up...on_salaries.pdf

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Fletch 27]

Cheifs have multiple roles, I'm not sure how this works out exactly.

That is definately a high salary but it likely includes multiple roles as well as other forms of renumeration.

[/font]

I have multiple roles too! Payrole, Sales, Logistics.. ect etc..

That 7 pager is a laugh.... please see :

"Obviously, where there are fiscal improprieties, these should be addressed"

"While First Nations are themselves aware of the challenges that exist within their

communities regarding transparency and accountability"

"While any abuse or misspending is wrong, with 3,297 First Nation elected officials in

Canada, it must be pointed out that this is absolutely not the norm as the CTF would

suggest." (Not the Norm huh?)

You may want to note that that letter brings into account "ELECTED Officials" as well! Its the CHIEFS that oppose this! Not the Elected officials...

I find it odd that the word "Chief" is only mentioned 2 times in that lengthy Press Relesase from the Chiefs...

Edited December 12, 2012 by Fletch 27

[jacee]

They lost that land to Canada.

Incorrect.

They allow us to share their land.