First nations patiences waning

[Peanutbutter]

It's disgusting that any people have children then depend on the gov to support them for their ill advised decision. if one cannot afford to have children then they shouldn't be having them.

[jacee]

Shortlived....are you not aware of (or do you just refuse to acknowledge) the number of treaties made by the FN to cede and surrender all their land to the British? These documents are available for you to look at online if you haven't read them.

They didn't give the land away for free.

They surrendered control of lands to the Crown.

The Crown leased or sold some land on behalf of FN.

Payment for those sales and leases is still owing in many cases.

The Crown hasn't provided an accounting for FN trust funds in some cases.

[g_bambino]

no I said they have dual sovereignty/nationality /in some cases multisoveriegnty/nationality

Canadian citizenship and the charter only applies to Canadian citizens for citizens protections, it does not nullify the rights granted through crown treaties with other sovereignties.

You said: "you are standing on (or sitting on) native land right now. The british crown has no divine right to annex another peoples land." That is a claim that the Canadian Crown (successor in this jurisdiction to the British Crown) has no legitimate right to sovereignty over these lands; a claim only augmented by your other assertion that the treaties between the Crown and First Nations are "illegal contracts".

Again, you demonstrate a misguided conflation of sovereignty and nationality; they are not the same thing. First Nations are nations; that does not mean they are sovereign, and they are not. They are under the sovereignty, and therefore the authority, of the Queen of Canada, in parliament, in council, and on the bench (in the courts). This is spelled out very clearly in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Constitution Act 1867 and is why First Nations must abide by the laws passed by parliament and seek redress in Canadian courts; it is why aboriginals proceed to Canadian courts when their Charter rights have been violated (which demonstrates your claim of non-applicability of the Charter to be false). One cannot accept the Crown's laws and institutions while simultaneously rejecting the Crown's authority and it is oxymoronic to claim a sovereign body exists under another body's authority.

[g_bambino]

The charter specifically gives aboriginals extra rights.

No, it just says that the rights set out in the Charter don't negate any pre-existing rights in treaties between the Crown and First Nations.

[GostHacked]

It's disgusting that any people have children then depend on the gov to support them for their ill advised decision. if one cannot afford to have children then they shouldn't be having them.

Let's get hypothetical. (and I know this a little derailment, apologies in advance)

My job was outsourced, and now I work at a job with less money/benefits. My children were taken care of before, but now I might lose my house because I can't afford it as my job was shipped overseas. Guess I can suck it up go back to school, incur more debt and have less ability to take care of my kids.

Edited February 26, 2013 by GostHacked

[Peanutbutter]

Gost, it's called short term sacrifice for long term gain. Wallowing in poverty because one is simply too lazy to do some hard work isn't a worthwhile response.

[jacee]

Gost, it's called short term sacrifice for long term gain. Wallowing in poverty because one is simply too lazy to do some hard work isn't a worthwhile response.

Who's doing that? Certainly not single moms with preschoolers!

[shortlived]

Accountability now, look beyond the paper to the events themselves.

[shortlived]

You said: "you are standing on (or sitting on) native land right now. The british crown has no divine right to annex another peoples land." That is a claim that the Canadian Crown (successor in this jurisdiction to the British Crown) has no legitimate right to sovereignty over these lands; a claim only augmented by your other assertion that the treaties between the Crown and First Nations are "illegal contracts".

Most are. To a large extent they were unilateral pomps.

Again, you demonstrate a misguided conflation of sovereignty and nationality

What's that you don't like my opinion?

they are not the same thing. First Nations are nations; that does not mean they are sovereign, and they are not.

Oh they are. Particularly the Cree, and Six Nations. Not including unceeded lands. The people have not been extinguished. They are a nation and as many of them do, in recognizing their right to self determination, they are. You just have a political bias because it conflicts your intersts, their legitimacy is an entirely different matter, you are either corrupt or ignorant.

They are under the sovereignty, and therefore the authority, of the Queen of Canada, in parliament, in council, and on the bench (in the courts).

There is no sole exclusion requiring sole jurisidiction. They have their own jurisidictions. The treaty arrangements were not the crown making a deal with the crown. Land surrender is not surrender of state. Also treaty which is violated reverts any concessions granted by treaty.

If you break the deal you don't keep the prize. The deal was broke. Meaning to keep the prize you need a new deal.

This is spelled out very clearly in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Constitution Act 1867 and is why First Nations must abide by the laws passed by parliament and seek redress in Canadian courts; it is why aboriginals proceed to Canadian courts when their Charter rights have been violated (which demonstrates your claim of non-applicability of the Charter to be false). One cannot accept the Crown's laws and institutions while simultaneously rejecting the Crown's authority and it is oxymoronic to claim a sovereign body exists under another body's authority.

No actually it doesn't. First nations don't need to abide solely by the laws of Canada, they have their own jurisdictional powers. Likewise they have international rights. They are not subjects to the crown because the crown was extinguished starting progressively in the 1950's.

It is effectively an annex, unilateral imposition upon another culture is not recognised by international law, civil jurisdiction of a people cannot be altered during occupation legally.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Oh they are.

Oh, no, they are not. And I explained how.

They have their own jurisidictions.

Under the sovereignty and authority of the Canadian Crown.

They are not subjects to the crown because the crown was extinguished starting progressively in the 1950's.

Um... No.

[Accountability Now]

Accountability now, look beyond the paper to the events themselves.

What events? The British came, as did the French, as did the Americans (and the Spanish weren't to far off). After the war of 1812 the natives realized that 'we' weren't going away and it was in 'their' best interests to sign the treaties. In fact, they really didn't have a choice in signing them because it was either deal with the American or the Brits...and we all know how the Americans have and still treat their natives. These treaties are events unto themselves and are very objective in their wording.

So what events are you talking about? Specifically the ones that show it is still native land?

[Accountability Now]

No actually it doesn't. First nations don't need to abide solely by the laws of Canada, they have their own jurisdictional powers. Likewise they have international rights. They are not subjects to the crown because the crown was extinguished starting progressively in the 1950's.

The treaties say the Crown and its successors. Government of Canada being its successor in this case.

[g_bambino]

The treaties say the Crown and its successors. Government of Canada being its successor in this case.

No, Elizabeth II is the heir and successor to the previous sovereigns with whom treaties were signed.

[Accountability Now]

No, Elizabeth II is the heir and successor to the previous sovereigns with whom treaties were signed.

So are you saying Britain should be dealing with this?

[DogOnPorch]

You also told me to to hug a suicide bomber. I doubt you are upset at all about his statement.

I also got 60 days for saying it.

[Boges]

I read today that Chief Teresa "I'M STARVING!!!!" Spence is now appealing to the UN.

http://whitewraithe.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/facepalm.jpg?w=482

[g_bambino]

So are you saying Britain should be dealing with this?

I said no such thing.

[Accountability Now]

I said no such thing.

Ok.

[jacee]

I read today that Chief Teresa "I'M STARVING!!!!" Spence is now appealing to the UN.

http://whitewraithe.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/facepalm.jpg?w=482

I heard today that Boges said "I can be a real aho!"

He's appealing ... to himself.

[shortlived]

What events? The British came, as did the French, as did the Americans (and the Spanish weren't to far off). After the war of 1812 the natives realized that 'we' weren't going away and it was in 'their' best interests to sign the treaties. In fact, they really didn't have a choice in signing them because it was either deal with the American or the Brits...and we all know how the Americans have and still treat their natives. These treaties are events unto themselves and are very objective in their wording.

So what events are you talking about? Specifically the ones that show it is still native land?

You don't know enough about history to have an informed view. I can tell you only have a general knowledge of the events, likely from a history book that omits most of native history and takes a solely Eurocentric viewpoint.

I'm talking about peoples biographies like Robinson, the culture and folkways of the groups their traditions, their language understanding of business practices and so on. Including the negotiations, stipulations and other factors effecting the treaty be they context of duress threatened violence and extortion, as well as non consenting members, and what they faced if they did not go along with the demands. The context and legality, especially by todays ethics is paramount to how we view native treaty.

Edited February 27, 2013 by shortlived

[Accountability Now]

You don't know enough about history to have an informed view. I can tell you only have a general knowledge of the events, likely from a history book that omits most of native history and takes a solely Eurocentric viewpoint.

I'm talking about peoples biographies like Robinson, the culture and folkways of the groups their traditions, their language understanding of business practices and so on. Including the negotiations, stipulations and other factors effecting the treaty be they context of duress threatened violence and extortion, as well as non consenting members, and what they faced if they did not go along with the demands. The context and legality, especially by todays ethics is paramount to how we view native treaty.

Oh that's right....the conspiracy theories and tales of the downtrodden. I think I remember reading a book on that. The bottom line is the White man came and conquered however rather than spending $20m like the Americans did, the Brits chose a far more inefficient and long plaguing way that only cost them 800k. Bad choice in my opinion. The Natives were pawns in the battle between Britain and the Americans especially once the French pulled out if the game. They were nothing more than pawns so stop romantacising it to be any more by telling stories of folk takes and legends passed on at the fire.

[jacee]

Oh that's right....the conspiracy theories and tales of the downtrodden. I think I remember reading a book on that. The bottom line is the White man came and conquered however rather than spending $20m like the Americans did, the Brits chose a far more inefficient and long plaguing way that only cost them 800k. Bad choice in my opinion. The Natives were pawns in the battle between Britain and the Americans especially once the French pulled out if the game. They were nothing more than pawns so stop romantacising it to be any more by telling stories of folk takes and legends passed on at the fire.

Nobody "conquered" Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Never!

Canada would never even have existed without the efforts of our Indigenous allies in the War of 1812.

We made peace treaties with them to share the land.

Know and respect your own history, because that's where our present came from.

And ... LOVE it or LEAVE it!

Imo.

[Accountability Now]

Nobody "conquered" Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Never!

Canada would never even have existed without the efforts of our Indigenous allies in the War of 1812.

We made peace treaties with them to share the land.

Know and respect your own history, because that's where our present came from.

And ... LOVE it or LEAVE it!

Imo.

Pawns Jacee! Just because we did it peacefully does not mean they weren't conquered! They were a means to the end.

Sharing? Just because we let them hunt on our land doesn't mean we share it. I let my buddies use my house in Scottsdale but I still own it.

It's the way it is Jacee!

[jacee]

Pawns Jacee! Just because we did it peacefully does not mean they weren't conquered! They were a means to the end.

Sharing? Just because we let them hunt on our land doesn't mean we share it. I let my buddies use my house in Scottsdale but I still own it.

It's the way it is Jacee!

Not here. Edited February 27, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Gateway showdown might dwarf Idle No More

Idle No More has faded from view after an impressive run in the headlines. Another aboriginal movement, however, continues to build toward the biggest First Nations stand-off in a generation the fight against the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.

...

The contentious project a 1,170-kilometre pipeline that would link the Alberta oilsands with a supertanker port in Kitimat, B.C. is a major economic and environmental issue.

...

Like Idle No More, the pipeline battle is a gut-level expression of aboriginal determination. Unlike Idle No More, it is tightly organized and well defined, with proven staying power and a simple focus: to prevent construction of the $6.5-billion project.

Aboriginal opposition to Gateway is centred in 20 or so relatively small First Nations between Prince George, B.C. and Haida Gwaii (the Queen Charlotte Islands).

... all said three things:

1) they oppose Northern Gateway;

2) there is nothing Enbridge can do to change their minds that is, they are not just posturing in order to get more money;

3) they are prepared to oppose the project in the courts and by standing in front of bulldozer.

The leaders I met were not anti-development the Haisla of Kitimat, for instance, are aggressively pursuing a multi-billion dollar project to export liquified natural gas but the risks of the Gateway project are simply too high, they say.

...

The big question now is whether Enbridge will stay the course, and if so, whether Ottawa will approve the project. Will Gateway proceed to the point of open confrontation with First Nations?

...

Meanwhile, a federally-appointed panel continues to hold public hearings, with their findings due in Ottawa by the end of the year.

...

t. The fact the anti-Gateway movement has a simple objective, established leaders, a geographic centre, reasonable chances of success and appeal well beyond aboriginal circles would likely enable it to mobilize support that would dwarf the rallies of Idle No More.

It may not come to this. The project may be quietly shelved at some point.

It will be very interesting to see the results of the review.

This may be the first time that a major corporate project isn't just rubber stamped.