First nations patiences waning

[Peanutbutter]

Why has Ms. Spence hidden herself away all of a sudden? Why is scared to open her books? She's awfully quiet now.

[Fletch 27]

Something is fishy here indeed.. And its not Fish-broth... I wish the MEdia would do there jobs here..

[shortlived]

Something is fishy here indeed.. And its not Fish-broth... I wish the MEdia would do there jobs here..

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2013/03/activist-communique-idle-no-more-still-breathing

March 20 to March 22 have been called out as global day of actions for Idle No More.

...

...

March 20: Day of Ceremony and Resurgence

March 21: Idle No More Day of Action

March 22: World Water Day

I definately pledge my support for the cause of clean water in the North of Canada, I like hiking and having to worry about chemical runoff sucks. I already got sick once from this. Toxic wastes from mining operations should be totally contained by the company not flushed down the toilet into my drinking water supply or into the flesh of local animals that people at times are prone to hunting.

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Toxic wastes from mining operations should be totally contained by the company not flushed down the toilet into my drinking water supply or into the flesh of local animals that people at times are prone to hunting.

In what place is that currently legal?

[jacee]

In what place is that currently legal?

[Sleipnir]

In what place is that currently legal?

Guess

Edited March 7, 2013 by Sleipnir

[g_bambino]

Guess

Is there an answer to my question or not? It may seem stupid to people in the know, but it was asked in good faith.

[Sleipnir]

Is there an answer to my question or not? It may seem stupid to people in the know, but it was asked in good faith.

Sorry.

Not exactly a mine, but consider communities in Canada that do not have treatment plant for raw sewage. Example, Victoria dumps 129 million gallons of raw sewage into the ocean daily, thus such contaminant no doubt find their way near land and into the tissue of organisms (fisheries, clams, birds, bears, etc). This can affect fisheries, hunting and recreational activities (as well as aesthetic values).

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=14696e10-8a43-4003-bfc3-1cbf6a6c33b5

Edited March 7, 2013 by Sleipnir

[g_bambino]

Sorry.

Not exactly a mine, but consider communities in Canada that do not have treatment plant for raw sewage. Example, Victoria dumps 129 million gallons of raw sewage into the ocean daily, thus such contaminant no doubt find their way near land and into the tissue of organisms (fisheries, clams, birds, bears, etc). This can affect fisheries, hunting and recreational activities (as well as aesthetic values).

Thanks.

Well, no, those aren't mines, which is what I was aksing about; the "[t]oxic wastes from mining operations" shortlived mentioned. I would like to know where that kind of dumping is legal. I'd think toxic waste is rather different to sewage (as nasty as it is to dump that directly into nearby water).

[Accountability Now]

Sorry.

Not exactly a mine, but consider communities in Canada that do not have treatment plant for raw sewage. Example, Victoria dumps 129 million gallons of raw sewage into the ocean daily, thus such contaminant no doubt find their way near land and into the tissue of organisms (fisheries, clams, birds, bears, etc). This can affect fisheries, hunting and recreational activities (as well as aesthetic values).

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=14696e10-8a43-4003-bfc3-1cbf6a6c33b5

It sounds like Victoria is finally getting a wastewater plant but ironcially it also carries some opposition to this plan. Some scientist are stating that if the material is screened properly (which Victoria does) that the organic matter is better taken care of in the natural ecosystem. If our wastewater was only human waste then I would agree with them however how much other stuff gets put down the drains too?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/23/scientist-pooh-poohs-victorias-780m-plan-for-new-sewage-plant/

[Sleipnir]

Thanks.

Well, no, those aren't mines, which is what I was aksing about; the "[t]oxic wastes from mining operations" shortlived mentioned. I would like to know where that kind of dumping is legal. I'd think toxic waste is rather different to sewage (as nasty as it is to dump that directly into nearby water).

When the final report was released last week, it found unsafe levels of mercury, lead and copper, as well as chemical hydrocarbons from motor oil, around the pipes that dump Victoria's raw sewage into the ocean.

In addition to the nasty human waste, it was found that materials you might have expected to find within the vicinity of the mines also appeared 'around the pipes'. Not sure if that means the materials are found in the soil around the pipes, leaking from the pipes or within the pipes itself.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Sleipnir

[shortlived]

And it returns... "Raymond Robinson"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/03/manitoba-aboriginal-leader-on-hunger-strike-says-hes-ready-to-die-unless-harper-agrees-to-nation-to-nation-dialogue/

I did this in January and the first couple days are the hardest, after day 4.. without food or water it is all psychology. By day 7 without food or water it is a critical point, Generally people die some point after 7 days and less than 14 days, with potential kidney damage.

This is a big deal in regard to this hitting the boiling point within a week. and climaxing some point after that if it gets to it.

This is not a spence fast.. the absence of food is nothing in this after day 3... it is absence of water that will be the big point. Harpers easter vacation for two weeks will be a count down on this guys death unless he responds.

Edited April 4, 2013 by shortlived

[Bryan]

Hooray, more extortion.

"Nation to Nation"? Like what, as if Cross Lake were an international recognized sovereign country?

Yeah, good luck with that. The Aboriginal Affairs Minister has already offered to meet with you, take him up on it.

[Smallc]

Yeah, the whole nation to nation thing is part of the dream palace. There is only one sovereign country involved here.

[Accountability Now]

And it returns... "Raymond Robinson"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/03/manitoba-aboriginal-leader-on-hunger-strike-says-hes-ready-to-die-unless-harper-agrees-to-nation-to-nation-dialogue/

I did this in January and the first couple days are the hardest, after day 4.. without food or water it is all psychology. By day 7 without food or water it is a critical point, Generally people die some point after 7 days and less than 14 days, with potential kidney damage.

This is a big deal in regard to this hitting the boiling point within a week. and climaxing some point after that if it gets to it.

This is not a spence fast.. the absence of food is nothing in this after day 3... it is absence of water that will be the big point. Harpers easter vacation for two weeks will be a count down on this guys death unless he responds.

Its too bad. Spence's fake hunger strike will actually kill this guy if his is for real. But....they had their chance and blew it by let Spence's charades take center stage. You can't blame Harper for not taking this guy seriously now.

[g_bambino]

I can't quite decipher what this Robinson guy wants. What's a nation-to-nation meeting other than a meeting between he, a chief, and Valcourt, a minister of the Crown? Or, is he actually following on with Spence's game of demanding nation-to-nation meetings but turning down invitations to such meetings under the pretense of contradictory and/or inaccurate definitions of "nation" (it's the prime minister alone! No, it's the Queen!) because what she really wants is to continue to make the government look bad until it caves and puts certain legislative amendments before parliament?

[ed.: +]

Edited April 4, 2013 by g_bambino

[PIK]

This guy seen how spence became a media darkling and he wants a piece of the action, this guy is a bigger loser then spence. And I can't wait to see what justin will say about it, since he went right to her for a photo op. So he put himself into a corner there.

[jbg]

Why has Ms. Spence hidden herself away all of a sudden? Why is scared to open her books? She's awfully quiet now.

Maybe very hungry?

[shortlived]

Well my support is with the first nations on this. They are sovereign, especially in absence of treaty being adhered to. If the state is to hold together as a union of nations then it will be up to equalization and respect of rights, especially those rights that first nations are suppose to have including the right to consultation if their lives are being effected by legislation. IMO I think that the right to consultation needs to be protected, by giving first nations as individual nations and they are such as Mattawa first nation etc.. the right of vetoing federal legislation effecting their rights, and that only a tribunal established by both the federal government and aboriginal government should resolve those liabilities. First nations do hold sovereign powers. The current government seems to be more incline to "manage" first nations, than treat them as sovereign states,as a means to deny them their rights under international law and the constitution.

The feds continuing to force subjugation and assimilation of the first nations needs to stop much like the occupation of lowland Quebec needs to stop, if there is indeed free peoples being subjugated. We are all entitled to our freedom and independence. Subjugation is a corrupt practice of the bygone colonial era. Just greedy people not wanting to loose the benefit of subjugating and enslaving people and their land for their own selfish gain.

People need to wake up to the reality of a difference of a Canada brought together through mutual agreement and cooperation, or one of abuse by rule by force. The abuses are not forgotten.

While I do think it is the attorney generals (or regents) job not the prime ministers or ministers of the crown. Whoever is dealing needs to have full plenary powers. The minister of indian affairs does not have that power so they are not a suitable choice.

First nations have never given up their sovereignty.

Edited April 4, 2013 by shortlived

[Accountability Now]

First nations have never given up their sovereignty.

I could argue that in the Royal Procolomation (which most natives use to their benefit for land claims) that it says:

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the

present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and

Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not

included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the

Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the

Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which

fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

The question is wheter natives adhere to the Royal Proclomation or not. If they don't then you're right. If they do then they did give up soverignty as the Brits clearly state the lands are under British sovereignty.

When First Nations people leave Canada, do they use a First Nations passport? Nope...its Canadian because other soverign countries don't recognize them as being soverign either. Soverignty has to do with other countries recognizing you as sovereign....not just Canada.

Having said this, looking at a document which is 250 years old doesn't solve today's problems. To be honest, I find natives still mired in soverignty talks or 'nation to nation' talks are a alot like those guys in World War II that didn't get notice that the war was actually over and kept fighting. The reality is that this country has moved on and the idea of soverignty is over. Go on and fight your land claims and other things promised to you but quit the chatter of soverignty as that ship has sailed.

[Archanfel]

"I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians! You won! Alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I feel really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends - you had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story."

-- Spike

[shortlived]

I could argue that in the Royal Procolomation (which most natives use to their benefit for land claims) that it says:

The question is wheter natives adhere to the Royal Proclomation or not. If they don't then you're right. If they do then they did give up soverignty as the Brits clearly state the lands are under British sovereignty.

When First Nations people leave Canada, do they use a First Nations passport? Nope...its Canadian because other soverign countries don't recognize them as being soverign either. Soverignty has to do with other countries recognizing you as sovereign....not just Canada.

Having said this, looking at a document which is 250 years old doesn't solve today's problems. To be honest, I find natives still mired in soverignty talks or 'nation to nation' talks are a alot like those guys in World War II that didn't get notice that the war was actually over and kept fighting. The reality is that this country has moved on and the idea of soverignty is over. Go on and fight your land claims and other things promised to you but quit the chatter of soverignty as that ship has sailed.

Dude, you don't get it do you, there is able to be more than one sovereignty, it says that they will use their power to insure the use of the lands for the natives. I call that a broken promise. Indian territory was violated anyone living west of the Appalachians should realize the royal proclamation was violated. They lied what is your point? No your point only indicates the British felt they have their own sovereignty, there is able to be more than one sovereignty, you don't seem to understand powers of state, I suggest you read up a bit.

Sovereignty is held by people or persons, not by territories.

Sovereignty is exerted over territories to create jurisdiction. These are really simple elements you don't seem to be aware of so your comment just appears as nonsensical.

Jurisidiciton also exists over people and property, which is exclusive of territory. These are the principles of rule and ownership

You basically just said, hey look its indian land... . it was their deeded land from the british perspective. While the british unilaterially position themselves to hold the title. Its like your house is deeded but really the Queens title, but you maintain your use as long as you meet the conditions of the land grant. Sadly though a proclamation is unilaterial it in no way effects other parties sovereignties.

That proclamation was has not been upheld by the crown, it failed in its proclamation. The priniciple british deed is use of the land for the natives. In enforcing the proclamation the numbered treaties would not be possible since the treaties violate the proclamation, which had already been violated by settlers.

Edited April 5, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

"I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians! You won! Alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I feel really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends - you had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story."

-- Spike

The Romans were conquered.

Edited April 5, 2013 by shortlived

[eyeball]

The question is wheter natives adhere to the Royal Proclomation or not. If they don't then you're right. If they do then they did give up soverignty as the Brits clearly state the lands are under British sovereignty.

It is a simple fact that title was not extinguished throughout most of BC and treaties intended to do that are still being negotiated to this day.

In the wake of these modern treaties that make the comprehensiveness of the royal proclamation seem more like a bad brochure, don't be surprised if many indigenous people east of BC revisit their surrender and so-called treaties with a view to updating them.

Given indigenous people are the fastest growing demographic in Canada they just might do what the Romans never did. I'm reminded of what a medicine man I know told me about when his people conquered someone. They wiped them out to the last man, woman and child so no survivors could or would ever come back to reclaim their title, amongst other things.

[Accountability Now]

Dude, you don't get it do you, there is able to be more than one sovereignty, it says that they will use their power to insure the use of the lands for the natives. I call that a broken promise. Indian territory was violated anyone living west of the Appalachians should realize the royal proclamation was violated. They lied what is your point? No your point only indicates the British felt they have their own sovereignty, there is able to be more than one sovereignty, you don't seem to understand powers of state, I suggest you read up a bit.

Sovereignty is held by people or persons, not by territories.

Sovereignty is exerted over territories to create jurisdiction. These are really simple elements you don't seem to be aware of so your comment just appears as nonsensical.

Jurisidiciton also exists over people and property, which is exclusive of territory. These are the principles of rule and ownership

You basically just said, hey look its indian land... . it was their deeded land from the british perspective. While the british unilaterially position themselves to hold the title. Its like your house is deeded but really the Queens title, but you maintain your use as long as you meet the conditions of the land grant. Sadly though a proclamation is unilaterial it in no way effects other parties sovereignties.

That proclamation was has not been upheld by the crown, it failed in its proclamation. The priniciple british deed is use of the land for the natives. In enforcing the proclamation the numbered treaties would not be possible since the treaties violate the proclamation, which had already been violated by settlers.

It quite clear that you are the one that doesn't get it....DUDE! The Royal Proclomation was what all other treaties were based on....the starting point if you may. So don't feed me a bunch of bullcrap about the west of the Appalachians because there are a number of treaties that outline those too.

You like to make up your own definition of soverignty but here is how it is ACTUALLY defined:

Soverignty:

1

obsolete: supreme excellence or an example of it

2

a: supreme power especially over a body politic

b: freedom from external control : autonomy

c: controlling influence

3

: one that is sovereign; especially: an autonomous state

Tell me HOW the natives have any sense of soverignty. Do they have supreme power over their lands....hmmmm...no they don't even own their lands. The crown does. Do they have 'freedom from external control'....hmmmm....nope. The Indian Affairs controls them.

But don't let me stop you from dreaming what you want to dream. Have someone from the First Nations go to the US border and have them present their soverign First Nations passport. Because that is again the other part you so seemingly seem to avoid.....its not just Canada that doesn't reconginze the FN soverignty....its the rest of the world.

You don't want to use the Proclomation? That's fine....let's use any of the treaties which all basically say "do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands". WOW....tell me how one can have 'supreme power' when they don't even have any rights?

If you want to call it something else....then go for it but don't call it soverignty.....DUDE.