Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi

[g_bambino]

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?

It isn't. The concept of a "nation to nation" relationship has been lately mischaracterised as one between two sovereign states, or dozens of sovereign aboriginal states and a non-aboriginal one. The idea's untenable, though; aboriginal bands are clearly subject to the Canadian Crown (they are, in fact, creatures of federal law), not equal with it.

Of course, "nation to nation" is itself imprecise. It does describe the idea that an aboriginal chief can confer directly with the Canadian monarch, since the treaties are agreements between those two parties. However, it conveniently leaves out the imbalance in the relationship; the aboriginal chiefs are, in the end, subject to the monarch's laws (made at the direction of either ministers or parliament); the aboriginal nations (culturally distinct groups with some self-government) exist within the Canadian nation (a sovereign, multicultural state with total self-government).

[ed.: +]

Edited February 13, 2014 by g_bambino

[jacee]

It isn't. The concept of a "nation to nation" relationship has been lately mischaracterised as one between two sovereign states, or dozens of sovereign aboriginal states and a non-aboriginal one. The idea's untenable, though; aboriginal bands are clearly subject to the Canadian Crown (they are, in fact, creatures of federal law), not equal with it.

Recognizing existing Aboriginal rights.

Of course, "nation to nation" is itself imprecise. It does describe the idea that an aboriginal chief can confer directly with the Canadian monarch, since the treaties are agreements between those two parties. However, it conveniently leaves out the imbalance in the relationship; the aboriginal chiefs are, in the end, subject to the monarch's laws (made at the direction of either ministers or parliament); the aboriginal nations (culturally distinct groups with some self-government) exist within the Canadian nation (a sovereign, multicultural state with total self-government).Also recognizing existing Aboriginal rights.

[ed.: +]

[g_bambino]

Recognizing existing Aboriginal rights.

What?

[jacee]

No kidding. I got a good chuckle with your "Never mind" comment after he went on another wild tangent.

I agree that mistakes were made and some land was taken or used erroenously. The Government of Canada also agrees as they have $10B set aside for future land claims. If lands were taken in error then these bands should be compensated. However, it seems like everyone has a land claim...like the Papaschase in Edmonton or the ACFN in Fort Mac. Even once the Supreme Court says they are not entitled to a claim, they still gripe out their land claim. In my opinion this takes away from the legitimite land claims out there.

I have often seen this phrase quoted but yet I see it no where in the treaties. What I do see quoted in the treaties is the following:

This quote explicitly states that mining will be part of the British/Canadians land use which of course goes much further than the plough's depth. Where do you see 'plough's depth' in the historical agreements?

Again...as shown in the quote above....Indigenous people retained the right to hunting and fishing SUBJECT to settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

Furthermore, let's look at Section 35 in its entirety and see where it says they have the right to sustain themselves of the land.

I see nothing about the right to sustain themselves of the land except the highlighted red part stating they will uphold treaty rights...which bring us back to my quoted statement. Perhaps I'm not seeing it or its pointed out in other documentation that is only referenced here?

It doesn't matter what the Indigenous concept of ownership is. The British did and Canada does believe in ownership and the treaties were signed under British law. The original treaties even state that the Indians must adhere to British law. The BNA of 1967 section 91 Part 24 states that Indians are under the control of British law. Even the reserves they live on are owned by the government. Referring back to the Indian ways is a non-starter because it doesn't matter.

It was absolute when the natives agreed to sign these British treaties which stated "CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands". That's as absolute as it gets.

The application of the Constitution is the job of the courts, and the interpretations lie in case law - legal precedents evolving from each case.

The interpretation of treaties depends on the understandings of both parties to the treaties.

.

[jacee]

What?

"the monarch's laws" recognize existing Aboriginal rights.

[jacee]

Of interest perhaps ...

/toronto-is-an-iroquois-word/

The history of Canada does not begin with the arrival of Europeans or with land agreements signed with Europeans. By prioritizing that narrative, we commit the grave error of superimposing a Eurocentric frame of reference on what is included, not included, and valued in the discussion. The history of Toronto is much longer than 300 years.

The colonists spoke of owning the land. Aboriginal peoples believe that they are caretakers of the land, interconnected with all of creation.

Edited February 15, 2014 by jacee

[Remiel]

Where is this history written down in detail. I have never heard of any definitive primer on indigenous history by indigenous people.

[TimG]

Where is this history written down in detail. I have never heard of any definitive primer on indigenous history by indigenous people.

Probably because every band has its own oral history which is carefully edited over the generations to rationalize whatever the suits the band's interests. While it is true that written histories can be equally self serving the emphasis on written records allows people to go back and revisit prior interpretations. No such revisiting is possible for oral histories which makes them and extremely dubious source of information. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Probably because every band has its own oral history which is carefully edited over the generations to rationalize whatever the suits the band's interests. While it is true that written histories can be equally self serving the emphasis on written records allows people to go back and revisit prior interpretations. No such revisiting is possible for oral histories which makes them and extremely dubious source of information.

I've observed in my life that people expect others to act in ways they would themselves: Thieves expect people to steal, those who will lie to advance themselves expect others to lie, etc.

The courts take a more measured and respectful approach to oral histories:

http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=299173406

Through compelling analysis of Aboriginal, legal, and anthropological concepts of fact and evidence, Miller traces the long trajectory of oral history from community to court, and offers a sophisticated critique of the Crown's use of Aboriginal materials in key cases, including the watershed Delgamuukw trial. (1997)

A bold intervention in legal and anthropological scholarship, Oral History on Trial presents a powerful argument for a reconsideration of the Crown's approach to oral history.

Edited February 17, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

The courts take a more measured and respectful approach to oral histories:

The courts allow aboriginal oral histories to be weighed as part of the over all body of evidence. Prior to this ruling oral histories were not even accepted as evidence. This ruling does NOT mean court expects the oral histories to be treated as objective fact. They are still self serving accounts designed to support a narrative that benefits the band.

For example, eye witness accounts can also be self serving and unreliable but they are still allowed as evidence in trials. Other facts are used to weigh the accuracy of eye witness evidence. Oral histories would be even less reliable but they are at least allowed in court which is a win for aboriginals - but not as much as you claim.

Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

The courts allow aboriginal oral histories to be weighed as part of the over all body of evidence. Prior to this ruling oral histories were not even accepted as evidence. This ruling does NOT mean court expects the oral histories to be treated as objective fact. They are still self serving accounts designed to support a narrative that benefits the band.

For example, eye witness accounts can also be self serving and unreliable but they are still allowed as evidence in trials. Other facts are used to weigh the accuracy of eye witness evidence. Oral histories would be even less reliable but they are at least allowed in court which is a win for aboriginals - but not as much as you claim.

I claim only, as you do now, that they are considered, weighed on their merits along with other evidence.

I objected to your initial biased and derogatory outright dismissal of oral histories.

Oral_history

Edited February 17, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

I objected to your initial biased and derogatory outright dismissal of oral histories.

I said oral histories are self serving accounts edited to serve the band's interests. The fact that they are allowed as evidence does not refute my description because lots of other self serving evidence is allowed in court. Self serving does not automatically mean 'wrong' but is always a mistake to take it at face value. Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

I said oral histories are self serving accounts edited to serve the band's interests. The fact that they are allowed as evidence does not refute my description because lots of other self serving evidence is allowed in court.

Can you provide any evidence to support your self-serving claim?

"every band has its own oral history which is carefully edited over the generations to rationalize whatever the suits the band's interests."

Even some oral history 'evidence' would be helpful.

Edited February 17, 2014 by jacee

[Remiel]

To be fair written histories can also be edited and extremely self-serving. That said, on the whole they preserve detail much better and this makes them more accurate. The primary problem with oral history, to my mind, is actually gate-keeping. One should not have to depend on friendly relations with a highly specialized oral history buff to have access to the complete version of such histories. Anyone can obtain a book without regard to their prior opinion of the author or the positions taken therein.

[TimG]

Can you provide any evidence to support your derogatory claim?

It can't be anything else. Have you ever heard the same story covered on Fox and MSNBC? Completely different narratives because each is playing to their audience. In the case of oral histories the audience is the band so the stories will be edited to suit the band. This is an undeniable fact that requires no evidence other than a knowledge of human nature. If you wish to claim they deserve more consideration than a Fox news report then the onus in you to provide evidence of the wide spread scholarly commitment to objectivity among native story tellers. Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

To be fair written histories can also be edited and extremely self-serving.

FWIW - I believe I stated this above. But the written aspect makes it possible to revisit the claims after the fact. Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

It can't be anything else. Have you ever heard the same story covered on Fox and MSNBC? Completely different narratives because each is playing to their audience. In the case of oral histories the audience is the band so the stories will be edited to suit the band. This is an undeniable fact that requires no evidence other than a knowledge of human nature. If you wish to claim they deserve more consideration than a Fox news report then the onus in you to provide evidence of the wide spread scholarly commitment to objectivity among native story tellers.

I'll leave that to the courts, not to your judgement.

That's my point.

[Accountability Now]

The application of the Constitution is the job of the courts, and the interpretations lie in case law - legal precedents evolving from each case.

The interpretation of treaties depends on the understandings of both parties to the treaties.

.

Canadian Constituation, Canadian courts, Canadian law.....all of which aboriginals are a part of and subject to...not separate from.

[Accountability Now]

I'll leave that to the courts, not to your judgement.

That's my point.

The Supreme court told the Papaschase they didn't have claims nor do the ACFN in Fort Mac on the new expansion. I trust there have been other cases just like this where the courts have closed the doors on aboriginal cases. In these situations, do you still side with the courts knowing those particular bands are not happy with the decision?

[g_bambino]

"the monarch's laws" recognize existing Aboriginal rights.

They recognise the rights set out in earlier laws.

[-1=e^ipi]

never mind.

What a well thought out response. *sarcasm*

This is true in your house example as person who had the deed was legally entitled to the property as they had the deed....until of course they found out how they came up with the deed.

No, the person who had the deed was not legally entitled to the property in the first place. People just thought that the person owned that house because they had misleading information.

I would like you to read this again. You're saying with the First Nations treaites issues which of course is treaties between Britain (Canada) and the First Nations that there is NOT 2 states that went to war OR 2 different legal systems. Let me count...First Nations legal system...that's 1.....British legal system.....that's 2. Hmmmm.

The first nations didn't have a 'legal system' and Canada did not exist. All of the laws regarding the treaties were made under the British legal system and ultimately depend on the legitimacy of the British Crown to make those laws.

Just because they were signed under the British legal framework does not negate the legitmacy of the First Nations entering into that agreement. DId Japan not have its own system before signing their treaty?

Yes Japan did. But Japan is not First Nations. Can you really not understand the difference between a empirical world power with clear rules and laws and a bunch of disorganized tribes spread out across a large area?

Even in your BS response in this post pertaining to laws depending on legal authority, the example of the US right to bear arms holds true as it was first put into place by people hundreds of years ago that have nothing to do with current day people NOR due they have authority on how how the US governs itself today. YET....the current law makers continue to uphold it for what ever reason.

Please reread what I wrote. With regards to the right to bear arms, the legitimacy of the right to bear arms depends on the legitimacy of the US legal frame work under which it was created as well as the legitimacy of the law-makes that made those laws. Similarly, the 'Treaties' depend on the legitimacy of the British legal frame work under which they were created as well as the legitimacy of the law-makers / monarchs that made those laws.

One day the US may change the ammendment. Maybe Canada might negate or change how we deal with natives. But this will result from doing what's right for us currently....not because these past people had or didn't have so called authority.

Oh good, you recognize the difference between 'doing what is right' and the 'moral/legal authority of a law'. Now if you would just apply this recognition elsewhere...

[-1=e^ipi]

What part?

Like the whole thing... read your own post...

I'm saying there are situations where people have never been challenged for that land therefore these people CAN and DO own land based on this.

My premise is that sovereignty is what dicates the ability to own land with soverignty being the ability to control, maintain or defend your borders.

We aren't talking about a sovereign nation with the ability to enforce borders or individual property rights.

We are talking about a large subgroup of individuals that claim communal property rights over large sections of Canada based on their ancestry/race. Plus you have the leftist enablers that support these race-based property rights in the name of 'anti-racism'.

Their ancestors did own it...right up until they made the treaties. If they didn't own the land then who did?

No one. Why must you insist that the land was owned prior to the creation/imposition of Canada/British legal framework?

The concept of land ownership didn't really exist prior to the treaties. Not to mention the legitimacy of the different parties to make those treaties is questionable.

When it comes to land ownership, it doesn't matter who was there first.

This statement I agree with, but I sense a lack of consistency in what you have been claiming. So if it doesn't matter who was there first, why do you insist that First Nations people have property rights based on their ancestry?

if the US went to the moom, stayed there and continued to maintain those borders then YES they would claim ownership over the moon. The fact is they didn't....so no they don't own the moon.

So if my neighbours own a cottage and they leave it after the summer to go back to their house, can I go to their cottage and occupy it and then claim ownership since the neighbours left? That is silly...

The Vikings came to Canada...and left. Others may have been in Canda first and were later defeated by the First Nations tribes. None of this affects our position as Canads in reference to the treaties as we signed treaties with the resepective nations who had sovereignty over that specific area....hence more than one treaty. The bottomline is that the First Nations did have soverignty at the time of treaties becasue they took it from past nations or had it evolve.

Who is 'we'? I was never alive when these treaties were signed, nor were you.

But I do like how you are 'evolving' your language from 'ownership' to 'sovereignty'. Sure I can agree that the First Nations have 'sovereignty' over their respective territories when the treaties were signed. In much the same way as a bank robber with a machine gun has 'sovereignty' over a bank when they are robbing it. But sovereignty isn't ownership.

They did have the rights. They fought off other tribes for those rights. They stayed on these lands to maintain those rights. They also fought with the British and French to maintain those rights. Ultimately they realized they couldn't defend these land rights any more and signed the treaties. What part of this don't you get?

So the bank robber has 'rights' to a bank? Do I have 'rights' to my neighbour's cottage if I occupy it? This is either wrong or a complete perversion of the word 'rights'.

The point is property rights / ownership cannot be derived based on morality and/or where people's ancestors are from or who occupied some land at any given time. They only exist because they are useful for society (they incentivise productive behaviour) and the approach to property rights / ownership should be pragmatic.

Show all the videos you like. I agree that they USED to own the land.

Yeah, but I DON'T. The concept of land ownership or property rights before British/French colonies were established did not really exist.

Furthermore, you have yet to define the 'radius of land ownership based on where a group of people lived'. Who owned melville island for example?

Just out of curiosity....who is Dysart? I thought Neepenak was the Manitoba Grand Cheif. DId Dysart precede him?

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIJTTjc1A-s" see description

The others were killed off and therefore soverignty was transferred. Its the way it is....or at least the way it was. Again...thanks to our global alliances we don't view genocide in the same way. Bottom line is that Britain signed treaties with the governing body at that time.....the current soverign group that held title to the lands.

Again, you are using 'sovereignty' not property rights or ownership here... so the above quotation does not refute anything I wrote.

Again...the natives didn't have the land because of where their ancestors are from.....they had the land because they fought for it and defended it and then went on to maintain it.

So now you have gone from 'ownership' to 'rights to land' to 'sovereignty' to 'have the land'. Maybe you could define all these terms you keep coming up with for me and how they differ from 'ownership'?

So a bank robber 'has the land' of the bank while they are robbing it?

More importantly....the evolution of society as we know it did not evolve based on your utopian view of how ownership should exist. It evolved based the idea of having to defend your land. So don't superimpose your current altruistic beliefs back on people hundreds of years ago and expect it to apply. It doesn't work that way.

People can claim ownership and enforce their ownership of something, doesn't mean that it actually exists. The view that property rights should exist primarily to benefit society isn't 'altruistic' it is 'pragmatic/reasonable'.

Back in the day....YES....the Japanese would be the owners of the land becasue the Nunavut couldn't defend their borders. That is the way it was. Of course, that wouldn't fly today. Different sense of right and wrong.

I do not think I agree with your concept of how 'ownership' is determined, nor do I understand your inconsistency between 'today' and 'back in the day'.

I like your hypocrisy.....you're saying "i'm not convinced that those that perform the genocide become the rightful owners". So who are the rightful owners? The Inuit because their ancestors were from there?

No one is the rightful owner, that's the god-damned point! The best you can get is rightful owner under a specific legal framework, but there is no true rightful owner to anything. Ownership is a human construct that exists because it benefits societies that have ownership (since it inventivises productive behaviour).

Edited April 18, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

No kidding. I got a good chuckle with your "Never mind" comment after he went on another wild tangent.

Not responding to people's arguments amuses you?

It doesn't matter what the Indigenous concept of ownership is. The British did and Canada does believe in ownership and the treaties were signed under British law. The original treaties even state that the Indians must adhere to British law.

Doesn't this contradict your earlier claims that the treaties were signed under 2 legal frameworks, not 1?

So? Those existing rights being referred to are those "given" by the treaties, not some nebulous concept of pre-colonial, pan-continental, divinely originating aboriginal rights.

Exactly.

"the monarch's laws" recognize existing Aboriginal rights.

The monarch also recognizes the supremacy of god. It doesn't not mean that god exists. Similarly, these existing aboriginal rights did not necessarily exist.

[Accountability Now]

Ya right...you walk away from the argument over two months ago and now you expect people to dive back into it? Get real.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ya right...you walk away from the argument over two months ago and now you expect people to dive back into it? Get real.

Walk away? I was busy. It is up to you if you want to reply or not. I make no expectations about if people want to continue to participate or not.