Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi

[Remiel]

I am loathe to write about First Nations issues because my PC side (rightly) fears that it is the topic which could do the worst damage to a reputation and friendships if unpopular views were exposed later in life. But the last few years of stewing on it alone had, I think, perhaps contributing to me being even more reactionary on the subject that I might otherwise have been. I need to get some of it off my chest.

My question then is this: To what extent is our specific Constitutional Monarchy, where sovereignty is nominally located in the institution of the Crown, compatible with the rhetoric espoused lately of the "nation to nation" relationship between Canada and our indigenous peoples?

Indigenous tribes seem, for the most part, to believe they have a kind of popular sovereignty, where the source of the chiefs' power and authority is the people themselves. However, as the Teresa Spence affair seemed to indicate (by way of the dogged determination to see the Governor General on political matters), many also seem to have no problem believing that the Crown is the source of power and authority in Canada and that Canadians themselves are of inferior status, subordinate to this institution. In other words, I am worried that while the rhetoric is "nation to nation" the reality many believe in is "nation to Crown" or "nation to Sovereign" .

Certainly there is the so-called "special relationship" between First Nations and the Crown. This is also problematic I think. How can it be in a democracy that the relationship between citizens and their Head of State is not not of greater importance than that between the Head of State and a third party that holds a separate kind of sovereignty? The greatest manifestation of this problem lies, I think, in the seeming case that if Canadians wanted to change the Head of State we would have to consult with First Nations, not merely as Canadians, all of which would of course have an equal say, but as a separate polity that would somehow get a say, even possibly a veto, on the central pillar of the Canadian Constitution. Obviously I am aware that this would mirror to some extent how Canada interfered baselessly with the governing structure of First Nations, but two wrongs do not make a right, and a tyranny of the majority cannot be improved upon by becoming a tyranny of the minority (as Syria's relationship with its Alawites should prove).

I am sure that there are factual errors that I will or would be lambasted for, but I am inclined to think that they would not necessarily detract from my actual thesis: That a healthy nation to nation relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples may require the form Canada's sovereignty takes to conform more closely to the popular model than it does to the Crown or elite-driven model it currently does.

[TimG]

There definitely is a disconnect between how many natives perceive themselves and reality. I remember a conversation I had years ago with native that claimed to be a constitutional scholar. I explained that natives have their "rights" because Canadians want them to have them and a referendum with 50%+1 in every province is all that is needed to take all those rights away. He told me that I was being absurd because Canadians have no power to take away native rights because their rights supersede the constitution. I told him he was living in a dream world.

Natives activists do see the world as feudal fiefs to be divided among the elites. The unwashed masses only exist to provide income to support the lordlings in the style to which they feel they deserve. You can see this attitude if you have discussion about taxes on native lands. To natives, taxes are rents designed to support the tribe so they do not need to work - to everyone else taxes are collective payments for services rendered and the tax rates depend only on the cost of services.

Only one of those views is compatible with democracy.

Edited January 28, 2014 by TimG

[Remiel]

I do not really see the need to worry about the philosophical differences between what taxes are for between natives and non-natives. Those are not foundational to the relationship between us. And as long as I were getting some kind of value for money according to standards elsewhere it should be neither here nor there what the taxes are "for" .

[TimG]

And as long as I were getting some kind of value for money according to standards elsewhere it should be neither here nor there what the taxes are "for".

It matters a lot given how upset people get when government officials use tax dollars inefficiently (remember the fuss over $16 orange juice?). Based on the native understanding of taxes they would be entitled to waste the money in any way they see fit and the payers have no right to complain.

This issue goes to the core of the point you were making in the op: that the native understanding of their relationship is fundamentally incompatible with the values of democracy.

[cybercoma]

This isn't a democracy though. It's a constitutional monarchy.

[Bonam]

This isn't a democracy though. It's a constitutional monarchy.

It's both. The two are not incompatible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy,

Edited January 29, 2014 by Bonam

[jacee]

Indigenous Nations of Kanata were sovereign peoples for thousands of years.

Sovereignty cannot be taken away.

It can only be surrendered.

Indigenous Nations never surrendered their sovereignty.

Thus their claim of sovereign nationhood still has validity today.

They are not subjects of the Crown as we are.

They are allies of the Crown.

Indigenous sovereignty exists within our Constitution Act, as Sections 25 and 35 "recognize and affirm" Aboriginal rights, beyond the equality rights of Canadians.

Canada - our governments and some Canadians - want to pretend that isn't true and haven't told us the truth, because they didn't know how to deal with that legal reality, so they've left it to the courts.

Harper has opened a door to that communication, a precedent, by recognizing Quebecois as a "nation".

.

Edited January 29, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

There definitely is a disconnect between how many natives perceive themselves and reality. I remember a conversation I had years ago with native that claimed to be a constitutional scholar. I explained that natives have their "rights" because Canadians want them to have them and a referendum with 50%+1 in every province is all that is needed to take all those rights away. He told me that I was being absurd because Canadians have no power to take away native rights because their rights supersede the constitution.

Only in your dreams, TimG.

We didn't "give" them rights.

The Constitution "recognized and affirmed existing" rights.

To natives, taxes are rents designed to support the tribe so they do not need to work

That's a lowlife racist comment that has no place in intelligent discourse. Edited January 29, 2014 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

That's a lowlife racist comment that has no place in intelligent discourse.

If he backs up the statement with a source, then is it really racist ? It's a comment on values, for sure, but is just saying that they view work differently than the ROC [rest of Canada] a racist statement ? I doubt it.

In terms of how "they" see themselves (allies of the crown) versus the ROC situation (subjects of the crown) and how taxes are used, I say that if people are engaged with the system, and are invested in it to an adequate degree, then the system carries out its function.

Like the economy, it may not be fair but if it delivers an amount of utility to its users then it will persist. And, just like the economy, there will be edge cases where the system can be unfair and contradict values of one or both sides; if we ignore these then the system loses support and therefore its social utility.

My question is: is there engagement on the First Nations side, to the point where we can say that they support their leaders' negotiations with the crown ? How much support is there on the Canadians side for maintaining the status quo vs changing it somehow ? If there is support for change, then ... change how ?

[TimG]

The Constitution "recognized and affirmed existing" rights.

A clause that was added because native leaders in 1984 understood that Trudeau had the power to strip them of their rights if he so choose. The Constitution is the supreme document that defines how 1000 years of precedent and convention shall be applied by the courts in this country. If/when Canadians so choose they can amend that document to restrict the scope and meaning of all "existing rights" as they see fit. That is not going to happen because Canadians don't want the nasty confrontations that would accompany such a move but that does not change the fundamental reality that natives only have those rights which Canadians choose to give them.

That's a lowlife racist comment that has no place in intelligent discourse.

A yes. I repeat statements made to be by native activists and I am the racist. Most of the racists in Canada today are native or native sympathizers. They long for the society structured like Apartheid in South Africa where the natives are the feudal lords and everyone else are simply serfs who work to support their native overlords with no right to decide how much they will pay in taxes.

That is why natives are obsessed with the GG instead of the PM because they see the GG as the representative of the feudal lords which they aspire to be.

Edited January 29, 2014 by TimG

[Remiel]

A yes. I repeat statements made to be by native activists and I am the racist. Most of the racists in Canada today are native or native sympathizers. They long for the society structured like Apartheid in South Africa where the natives are the feudal lords and everyone else are simply serfs who work to support their native overlords with no right to decide how much they will pay in taxes.

That is why natives are obsessed with the GG instead of the PM because they see the GG as the representative of the feudal lords which they aspire to be.

That is going too far. That sort of generalization does not even make mathematical sense: those kind of native sympathizers are just not numerous enough to say that natives have more racists among two to four million than Canada has in thirty one to thirty three million.

There are only two or three situations that come to my mind to even back of the assertion that anyone thinks that way, let alone everyone. 1) Documents from the Six Nations of the Grand River claiming Canada could own they trillions of dollars from a few tiny pieces of land; 2) a couple of protesters at an event out West (I think it was a Liberal leadership event?) that claimed natives should straight up get 30% of Canada's GDP; and 3) Howie Miller proclaiming "My people should be Kings," in the CBC documentary 8th Fire, a terrible and possibly fatal blemish on what was generally a great series. And in his case it may have been more just running his mouth off without thinking. To assert from that every native thinks that way is incredibly racist.

I will admit that I do think there are heavy undertones of aristocratic thought in this whole situation, but the evidence for feudalism is sparse.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Remiel

[Remiel]

In case anyone saw the incorrect version, I originally attributed #3 to Manny Jules, but after a minute that rang false to me, he is the guy involved with the privatization of land. Who I meant, and who it has been since edited to say, is Howie Miller the comedian and father of that one guy who played in Twilight. I remembered him by his description and that the name ended with an "ee" sound but got the specifics wrong. My apologies.

[jacee]

If he backs up the statement with a source,

I'd like to see that!

then is it really racist ?

Yes it is.

It's a broadbrush negative stereotype that simply isn't true of all "natives", nor even a majority. That's racism.

It's a comment on values, for sure, but is just saying that they view work differently than the ROC [rest of Canada] a racist statement ? I doubt it.

His comment wasn't that benign.

In terms of how "they" see themselves (allies of the crown) versus the ROC situation (subjects of the crown) and how taxes are used, I say that if people are engaged with the system, and are invested in it to an adequate degree, then the system carries out its function.

Like the economy, it may not be fair but if it delivers an amount of utility to its users then it will persist. And, just like the economy, there will be edge cases where the system can be unfair and contradict values of one or both sides; if we ignore these then the system loses support and therefore its social utility.

My question is: is there engagement on the First Nations side, to the point where we can say that they support their leaders' negotiations with the crown ?

I haven't seen any evidence that people don't. Have you?

How much support is there on the Canadians side for maintaining the status quo vs changing it somehow ? If there is support for change, then ... change how ?

We are seeing those changes now, drastic changes in autonomy and opportunity as a result of court challenges for constitutional Aboriginal and treaty rights: The duty of the Crown to consult with Indigenous communities and to accommodate those rights through environmental protections, revenue sharing and jobs, where resource and other developments affect their traditional lands.

.

[jacee]

A clause that was added because native leaders in 1984 understood that Trudeau had the power to strip them of their rights if he so choose.

He tried. He lost.

The Constitution is the supreme document that defines how 1000 years of precedent and convention shall be applied by the courts in this country.

1000 years?!?!?!!

If/when Canadians so choose they can amend that document to restrict the scope and meaning of all "existing rights" as they see fit. That is not going to happen because Canadians don't want the nasty confrontations that would accompany such a move but that does not change the fundamental reality that natives only have those rights which Canadians choose to give them.

The international courts disagree.

A yes. I repeat statements made to be by native activists and I am the racist. Most of the racists in Canada today are native or native sympathizers. They long for the society structured like Apartheid in South Africa where the natives are the feudal lords and everyone else are simply serfs who work to support their native overlords with no right to decide how much they will pay in taxes.

That is why natives are obsessed with the GG instead of the PM because they see the GG as the representative of the feudal lords which they aspire to be.

Or much more likely because their treaties are with the Crown.

.

Edited January 29, 2014 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

It's a broadbrush negative stereotype that simply isn't true of all "natives", nor even a majority. That's racism.

Saying that different cultures have different views of work doesn't strike me as racist at all, it strikes me as realistic. If we label the assessment that another culture doesn't view work in the same way as, say, Protestants then who is the racist - the person who makes that assessment or the person who deems it as 'negative' ?

I haven't seen any evidence that people don't. Have you?

To be honest, the MSM strikes me as absolutely out of touch on these issues so I can't say with certainty. I have read posts on here in the past that indicate that there isn't solidarity with leaders at times.

The duty of the Crown to consult with Indigenous communities and to accommodate those rights through environmental protections, revenue sharing and jobs, where resource and other developments affect their traditional lands.

Those sound very positive across the board. The things that we'd hope to see from this are: support from the ROC and - of course - measurable benefits to First Nations peoples across Canada, especially for those who are so close to the bottom margins.

[TimG]

That is going too far. That sort of generalization does not even make mathematical sense: those kind of native sympathizers are just not numerous enough to say that natives have more racists among two to four million than Canada has in thirty one to thirty three million.

Perhaps. But native racists are considered social acceptable by many and that makes them much more odious.

I will admit that I do think there are heavy undertones of aristocratic thought in this whole situation, but the evidence for feudalism is sparse.

Many natives are seeking system where ownership of large tracks of land is restricted to a small group of people determined by ancestry. It may not have all of the attributes of feudalism but it is close enough to make the comparisons appropriate.

[Accountability Now]

That's a lowlife racist comment that has no place in intelligent discourse.

If he backs up the statement with a source, then is it really racist ? It's a comment on values, for sure, but is just saying that they view work differently than the ROC [rest of Canada] a racist statement ? I doubt it.

Ah...there goes Jacee playing the race card improperly....ONCE AGAIN!

[TimG]

1000 years?!?!?!!

I see you do not understand that the laws in this country stem from 1000 years of English common law. The constitution provides the framework that is used to interpret those laws.

The international courts disagree.

International courts have no standing. Canadian law is determined by the Canadian constitution.

Or much more likely because their treaties are with the Crown.

You seem to have the same blindness that many natives have. The "crown" is the Canadian state. The GG is a figurehead with no power. If the natives wish to discuss their treaties they must discuss them with the leader of the Canadian government with is the PM. Edited January 29, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

The things that we'd hope to see from this are: support from the ROC and - of course - measurable benefits to First Nations peoples across Canada, especially for those who are so close to the bottom margins.

Making efforts to ensure that natives can fully participate in the economic life of the country is good. My objections stem from the nightmare that has been created by these race based privileges (specifically the tax exempt status). If economic power of natives increases the tax exempt status will create huge problems.

[Michael Hardner]

My objections stem from the nightmare that has been created by these race based privileges (specifically the tax exempt status). If economic power of natives increases the tax exempt status will create huge problems.

How is tax exemption a nightmare ? I could understand you calling it unfair, but usually nightmare is used to refer to some kind of complication or boondoggle that's based in practical execution of a policy, not in the principles behind that policy - fair or not.

"Fairness" is, of course, always subordinate to what works.

[cybercoma]

If he backs up the statement with a source, then is it really racist ?

It's racist because it's perpetuating a stereotype about personal characteristics and behaviours of individual Natives that aren't true: Natives are lazy and don't want to work. I mean, really, MH, can you see ANY politician saying Natives want tax dollars so they don't have to work? Imagine the fallout from a comment like that. Jacee's right, it has no place and only serves to highlight the kind of bigotry that the First Nations have been dealing with since First Contact.

[cybercoma]

Saying that different cultures have different views of work doesn't strike me as racist at all, it strikes me as realistic.

Are you kidding me? Saying Jews are cheap or black fathers don't pay child support, are those "realistic" to you too?

[TimG]

How is tax exemption a nightmare ? I could understand you calling it unfair, but usually nightmare is used to refer to some kind of complication or boondoggle that's based in practical execution of a policy, not in the principles behind that policy - fair or not.

You cannot run a country if a significant amount of economic activity takes place in 'tax exempt' zones because it decreases the revenues to government and places a much higher burden on those who live outside the zones. As long as the native economy is relatively insignificant this tax exemption is not a big deal. If that changes in the future it will be a big deal. It would be a lot easier for governments to conclude deals with native groups if this tax exempt status did not exist.

[guyser]

How is tax exemption a nightmare ? .

Its not, perhaps convoluted at times.

But a blanket statement of tax exempt is categorically false. Add in that the majority of FN's live off reserve paying the freight as anyone else would.

[TimG]

It's racist because it's perpetuating a stereotype about personal characteristics and behaviours of individual Natives that aren't true: Natives are lazy and don't want to work.

The natives that want to work leave the reserves and get jobs in the cities like everyone else. The ones that stay on the reserves demanding revenue sharing arrangements with resource companies are looking for income to support their lifestyle choice. I was talking about the latter. The fact is there are a lot of people - native and non-native - who would rather not work if they could afford it. It is not racist to point this out. If you want a more positive spin you could say that many natives see themselves as asset owners that are entitled to live off the revenue generated from the assets. Edited January 29, 2014 by TimG