Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi

[Accountability Now]

Yes during the time period when there was slavery, blasphemy laws, criminalization of homosexuality and women were considered property. Laws made by people who were racist & sexist and didn't want to give native people the vote. The authority of these laws comes from some unelected monarch 250 years ago who got the position not by merit but by birthright. And the reason this monarch had authority over British North America is because the British simply invaded and took over the lands. Meanwhile, some of these laws, whose authority you do not question, contributed to the American revolution, such as the proclamation of 1763. If we consider these laws to have absolute legal authority, then shouldn't that mean we should consider the United States of America to be an illegal entity?

n.

You do realize that the numbered treaties were signed from 1871 to 1921...less than a hundred years ago.

Are you implying that all natives do not consider themselves Canadian? If so your comment is racist. And stop using comments like 'them' and 'us'.

.

And there's the famous race card again. The 'they' I'm talking about is the AFN (Assembly of First Nations). They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis.

[jacee]

The reality is that treaties were signed and I can respect the fact that we should honor them. However, the problem is two fold:

1. These treaties have been grossly interpreted to the point that doesn't make any sense. Often the courts will use the intent rather than what was actually written which has typically been to the favor of the natives.

'Intent' is very important in law.

http://scaa.sk.ca/ourlegacy/exhibit_treaties

For an understanding of the relationship between the Treaty Peoples and the Crown of Great Britain and later Canada, one must consider a number of factors beyond the treaty's written text. First, the written text expresses only the government of Canada's view of the treaty relationship: it does not embody the negotiated agreement.

Additional historical documents and traditional knowledge are also used in interpretation of treaties.

For example, all treaties are interpreted in the context of the Constitution Act, the Royal Proclamation (1763), and the Two Row Wampum agreement of sharing the land in peace and friendship without interfering with one another.

2. The treaties are actually hurting the natives more than they're helping them.

I don't think you're entitled to speak for them on that.

Also, Aboriginal rights exist with or without treaties.

Edited February 1, 2014 by jacee

[-1=e^ipi]

You do realize that the numbered treaties were signed from 1871 to 1921...less than a hundred years ago.

Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes. Most of my points still stand. Address my points rather than gloss over a minor detail that some treaties were signed 100 years ago instead of 250 years ago; obviously not all treaties were signed at the same time.

The 'they' I'm talking about is the AFN (Assembly of First Nations). They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis.

I do not agree with the legitimacy of the AFN. Furthermore, the AFN has an incentive to make sure any native issues never get solved, because if native issues get solved then the AFN is unnecessary (All the 'Indian issues' politicians make a lot of money from racist laws so have no incentive to improve things).

The AFN organization is inherently racist. Can we have an AWN (assembly of white people)? Can we have an ABN (assembly of black people)? no? Then why is an AFN okay?

And the whole argument that 'they consider themselves sovereign nations so should be dealt with as sovereign nations' is silly. If I consider myself to be a sovereign nation, am I suddenly a sovereign nation?

People should be treated as individuals and we shouldn't divide people into groups based on race.

You seem to have a lot of unproven premises in your 'arguments' that I do not agree with at all. If you want to be more convincing of your position then you will need to justify the various premises that you use in your arguments. Or perhaps you have never justified or even questioned these premises and simply took them as is because you agree with the dominant position in Canadian society? Perhaps if you begin to question some of your premises you will eventually understand my position.

Edited February 4, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't think you're entitled to speak for them on that.

Again with the 'them' and 'us' divisive racist language.

All of us are human. All humans are related within 100,000 years.

Also, Aboriginal rights exist with or without treaties.

Could you please define what these rights are and justify why they exist and are valid/moral? And I would prefer you don't just copy-paste stuff from the racist 'united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples'.

Also explain how you can implement these rights when dealing with people of mixed race.

Edited February 1, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Bonam]

They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority. I just question the current courts interpretation of what both sides intended.

Many laws enacted in the past have later been changed, whether due to them being perceived as no longer moral/ethical, no longer applicable, etc. The people had the authority to enact laws at the time that they enacted them. But we have the authority to change those laws now if we no longer find them to be acceptable. Law is not something set in steel, unchangeable for all the ages, but is a living set of ideas that evolves alongside the society in which it exists.

That is why the ultimate question is not "is it legal?" but "is it right?" Once you know what is right, then laws can be amended accordingly. If current laws are racist, then they can and should be changed, regardless of if they were validly enacted at some point in the past.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Bonam

[Accountability Now]

'Intent' is very important in law.

http://scaa.sk.ca/ourlegacy/exhibit_treaties

For an understanding of the relationship between the Treaty Peoples and the Crown of Great Britain and later Canada, one must consider a number of factors beyond the treaty's written text. First, the written text expresses only the government of Canada's view of the treaty relationship: it does not embody the negotiated agreement.

Additional historical documents and traditional knowledge are also used in interpretation of treaties.

For example, all treaties are interpreted in the context of the Constitution Act, the Royal Proclamation (1763), and the Two Row Wampum agreement of sharing the land in peace and friendship without interfering with one another.

Yes...thank you for the excerpt from Tamara Starblanket which obviously came from a non-biased site. Lol.

I don't think you're entitled to speak for them on that.

Why? Because I'm not first nations?

[Accountability Now]

Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes. Most of my points still stand. Address my points rather than gloss over a minor detail that some treaties were signed 100 years ago instead of 250 years ago; obviously not all treaties were signed at the same time.

So because the native people/women couldn't vote and homosexuality was a crime, then that makes ALL the laws at that time immoral because these people were apparently immoral? That is insane. People at that time were moral....in that timeframe... until they learned that CERTAIN laws or parts of their system needed to change...which they did. That doesn't mean the unchanged parts were immoral. These same 'immoral' people made laws about stealing and murder and they haven't changed those laws have they? According to you, since the decriminalization of homosexuality didn't happen till 1969 therefore any laws before this time were immoral. Or since we got a new constitution in 1982 then all the laws and people who made the laws before 1982 were immoral. The fact is that our laws are built on these foundations and only the immoral laws or the ones that need to be changed are changed. Canada's constitution was based on the Magna Carta and the BNA....both predating your imposed immorality time periods. Does that mean Canada's current constitution is immoral? This statement particularily applies to your claim about these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763. So what!They were written in more modern times. Just like the Constitution of 1982 was written in current times BASED on the Magna Carta and the BNA.

And they whole argument that 'they consider themselves sovereign nations so should be dealt with as sovereign nations' is silly. If I consider myself to be a sovereign nation, am I suddenly a sovereign nation?

I am not saying I believe them to be a sovereign nation....I'm saying they believe it. I guess you had a hard time picking that up?

You seem to have a lot of unproven premises in your 'arguments' that I do not agree with at all. If you want to be more convincing of your position then you will need to justify the various premises that you use in your arguments. Or perhaps you have never justified or even questioned these premises and simply took them as is because you agree with the dominant position in Canadian society? Perhaps if you begin to question some of your premises you will eventually understand my position.

Feel free to point out one or all of these claimed unproven premises and I will address them in turn. Perhaps you should have done that before taking off on your 250 year old laws tirade as that certainly got you nowhere.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

I don't think you're entitled to speak for them on that.

Again with the 'them' and 'us' divisive racist language.

Ya Jacee....stop being racist!

[Accountability Now]

Many laws enacted in the past have later been changed, whether due to them being perceived as no longer moral/ethical, no longer applicable, etc. The people had the authority to enact laws at the time that they enacted them. But we have the authority to change those laws now if we no longer find them to be acceptable. Law is not something set in steel, unchangeable for all the ages, but is a living set of ideas that evolves alongside the society in which it exists.

That is why the ultimate question is not "is it legal?" but "is it right?" Once you know what is right, then laws can be amended accordingly. If current laws are racist, then they can and should be changed, regardless of if they were validly enacted at some point in the past.

I agree with you and I think you can see that in my post that I just made above and reposted here:

So because the native people/women couldn't vote and homosexuality was a crime, then that makes ALL the laws at that time immoral because these people were apparently immoral? That is insane. People at that time were moral....in that timeframe... until they learned that CERTAIN laws or parts of their system needed to change...which they did. That doesn't mean the unchanged parts were immoral. These same 'immoral' people made laws about stealing and murder and they haven't changed those laws have they? According to you, since the decriminalization of homosexuality didn't happen till 1969 therefore any laws before this time were immoral. Or since we got a new constitution in 1982 then all the laws and people who made the laws before 1982 were immoral. The fact is that our laws are built on these foundations and only the immoral laws or the ones that need to be changed are changed. Canada's constitution was based on the Magna Carta and the BNA....both predating your imposed immorality time periods. Does that mean Canada's current constitution is immoral?

Even in the first two words of your post you state "many laws"....NOT ALL laws. The other poster is trying to claim that because some laws were changed that all laws were immoral and still are immoral. Like you said, we have the ability to change laws in this country. So if these laws we currently have are truly immoral then we would have had over 40 years since the decriminalization of homosexuality to change them yet the treaties still stand as binding law. The only thing that has changed is our interpretation.

[jacee]

Could you please define what these rights are and justify why they exist and are valid/moral? And I would prefer you don't just copy-paste stuff from the racist 'united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples'.

Also explain how you can implement these rights when dealing with people of mixed race.

I'll leave you to do your own research, if you are interested in learning. Of course, if you don't accept 'law', then you won't really be interested.

.

[jacee]

Many laws enacted in the past have later been changed, whether due to them being perceived as no longer moral/ethical, no longer applicable, etc. The people had the authority to enact laws at the time that they enacted them. But we have the authority to change those laws now if we no longer find them to be acceptable. Law is not something set in steel, unchangeable for all the ages, but is a living set of ideas that evolves alongside the society in which it exists.

That is why the ultimate question is not "is it legal?" but "is it right?" Once you know what is right, then laws can be amended accordingly. If current laws are racist, then they can and should be changed, regardless of if they were validly enacted at some point in the past.

I agree that laws sometimes need to be changed.

In the case of treaties, this can only happen with the consent of all parties: ie, Canada/the Crown cannot unilaterally change or dispose of the treaties.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

So because the native people/women couldn't vote and homosexuality was a crime, then that makes ALL the laws at that time immoral because these people were apparently immoral? That is insane.

No, you are strawmaning my position. Yes the laws and treaties were made during a time when many immoral positions were the social norm but that doesn't prove or disprove whether or no treaties, laws, Indian act, reserve system, etc. that result in the inherently racist laws we have today (which also contribute greatly to First Nations poverty due to lack of individual property rights) are moral or immoral.

Rather, I point out that the morality and ethics of the time period under which these laws were created was very questionable so you should be skeptical about the morality of the laws rather than just go "Well, we have an obligation cause some guys signed some treaties with some other guys hundreds of years ago, and even though all the individuals who made the treaties and laws are long dead, we must preserve racist laws from the past cause rule of law should never be questioned".

The reason racist laws from this time period are immoral is because they are racist, not because the time period they are from is immoral.

These same 'immoral' people made laws about stealing and murder and they haven't changed those laws have they?

Uhh... laws relating to stealing and murder change all the time. Canada does not have capital punishment for murder unlike some countries. Canada does not sever off the hands of those that steal, unlike those that practice Sharia law.

According to you, since the decriminalization of homosexuality didn't happen till 1969 therefore any laws before this time were immoral.

More strawman argument...

The fact is that our laws are built on these foundations and only the immoral laws or the ones that need to be changed are changed. Canada's constitution was based on the Magna Carta and the BNA...

You seem to have a tendency to want to derive morality from some charters, laws, constitutions, holy books or whatever from the past... Why? Why can't the morality of something be argued on its own merits? Can you not reason your arguments without appeal to authority?

Also, if you are effectively arguing 'the law is moral because it is the law', is that not a circular argument?

both predating your imposed immorality time periods.

Are you saying this helps your arguments? Was the time periods of the manga carta and the BNA more moral then when the treaties were signed? No.

Look, the manga carta, the BNA act, the royal proclamation, etc. could be 10 trillion years old for all I care. The only thing that matters is their content, not their age.

Does that mean Canada's current constitution is immoral?

That question depends on the content of the constitution and only the content. Aren't you done your ridiculous strawman argument yet?

This statement particularily applies to your claim about these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763. So what!

So what? If the legitimacy of the treaties depends on the legitimacy of the Royal proclamation of 1763, and the legitimacy of the Royal proclamation of 1763 depends on the legitimacy of King George 3, and the legitimacy of an unelected monarch who got power through birth right rather that merit over some foreign lands on a continent he has never been to is questionable, then does that not make the authority of the treaties and other racist laws that are a result from this past questionable?

They were written in more modern times. Just like the Constitution of 1982 was written in current times BASED on the Magna Carta and the BNA.

I hardly call 100+ years ago 'modern times'.

I am not saying I believe them to be a sovereign nation....I'm saying they believe it. I guess you had a hard time picking that up?

Strawmaning my position again. I never said that you said that you thought that they were a sovereign nation. You said that they consider themselves as a sovereign nation, so should be dealt with as a sovereign nation. I then asked the reasonable question if I consider myself a sovereign nation, should the government deal with me as a sovereign nation? The question was to show the ridiculous nature of your original claim.

[Bonam]

I agree that laws sometimes need to be changed.

In the case of treaties, this can only happen with the consent of all parties: ie, Canada/the Crown cannot unilaterally change or dispose of the treaties.

For one thing, the government can issue legislation specifying/restricting how the treaties may be interpreted... and that is often the point of contention, overly broad interpretations of treaty wording by judges.

Secondly, greater effort should be taken to try to come up with a new framework for relations between Canadians and natives through negotiation between the involved parties, one that is based on ideas suitable for the modern world, and preferably one that realizes that all peoples within the geographic borders of Canada are one nation and gets rid of racial discrimination.

Lastly, treaties can be broken, and often are broken. If an ancient treaty creates a modern injustice and there is no realistic way to amend it, then one can simply declare that it will no longer be honored. A country loses some trust/reputation for doing so, but nothing irreparable, much like declaring bankruptcy makes it harder to borrow money in the short term, but is something that can be recovered from over time.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Bonam

[Bonam]

You seem to have a tendency to want to derive morality from some charters, laws, constitutions, holy books or whatever from the past... Why? Why can't the morality of something be argued on its own merits? Can you not reason your arguments without appeal to authority

The idea that morality comes from laws, constitutions, "international law", etc, is one you'll encounter here from quite a few posters (holy books are a whole other can of worms). I don't understand it myself but it seems very prevalent. Perhaps the problem is that few people are interested in delving into the philosophy and logic of ethics and morality and would rather simply have a set of written rules that tells them what is good and what is bad. Of course, with the existing body of laws consisting of an almost uncountable number of documents, opinions, rulings, etc, one can find "law" to support almost any possible position, so it's also very convenient. You can decide that something is "moral" based on whatever your gut tells you, whatever your biases are, and then easily find some "law" to back it up.

[-1=e^ipi]

Feel free to point out one or all of these claimed unproven premises and I will address them in turn.

Sigh, fine I state a few of them.

Take the claim as simple as 'We signed treaties with them, therefore we have an obligation to uphold the treaties'.

I see this claim or similar claims all the time in similar discussions. Of course I disagree with the whole 'we vs them' word usage that so many people seem to use since non-Native Canadians and Native Canadians are all Canadians. But anyway, let's word the above phrase into something more specific that is easier to analyze:

"Natives used to own North America because that is where their ancestors are from. The British Crown made treaties with representatives of the native people to obtain the land now known as Canada. Because the British Crown had the authority to make laws for all British subjects and hence all Canadian citizens, even centuries after the unelected monarchs that made these laws have died, this somehow means that Canadian citizens today, be they native or non native, must support racist policies that would otherwise go against our modern values, even if it results in a lack of economic prosperity for native people on reserves due to a lack of individual property rights."

Now let's examine some of these premises:

* Native people owned North America in the first place

This is very dubious and I would like you to explain how do we determine what are and are not the native lands of an individual.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of native people descend purely from Siberians that crossed the Berring straight when it was a land bridge during the Clovis immigration 13,000 years ago. Yet you had a pre-Clovis immigration 15,000 years ago of Australoid peoples and the Solutreans existed in North America 19,000 years ago. Yet these pre-Clovis populations were pretty much entirely replaced by the Clovis peoples, so really most natives should be considered 'Third Nations' not 'First Nations' (admittedly the Ogibwe population and a few dispersed tribes along the pacific coast of the Americas, all the way down to Patagonia, could make a claim based on genetic evidence that a small portion of their DNA comes from pre-Clovis populations).

Then you have the fact that the Paleo-Eskimo people only came to North America 3,000 years ago, so are quite genetically different than so-called natives further south. And the Inuit only left Alaska for Canada & Greenland in the 11th - 13th centuries (after the vikings tried to colonize Greenland and Labrador), replacing the Dorset people in the process (as in the Dorset population completely died out due to conflict). This makes the Inuit 'Fifth Nations'. Yet many people claim that the Inuit should have 'indigenous rights' based on where their Ancestors are from. So if people whose ancestors arrived from Alaska to Canada 800 years ago can be considered indigenous, then why not people whose ancestors arrived from France to Canada 400 years ago?

Anyway, ignoring the whole issue of the Clovis people not actually being the first people of North America, how do we define the native lands of someone's ancestors? Surely not every single square inch of Canada was occupied by First Nations. So how close must an ancestor have lived to a location for that location to be considered one's ancestral land? 100 km? 200 km?

Melville Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Island_%28Northwest_Territories_and_Nunavut%29) was never inhabited by Inuit people or First Nations and was first visited by William Parry in 1819 of Britain. So does that mean that the native population of Melville Island is British? If so then descendants of British people should be considered indigenous to Canada, no?

If not then how close must an ancestor have to have lived for them to be considered descendants of first nations of a land? If we were to say that the distance is on the order of continental scales (i.e. if the 'first nations' were the first in North America then they somehow own North America), then would that also mean that the Koreans are native to China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, etc.? That seems ridiculous and absurd to me. Maybe it would be easier to say that all humans are native to Earth, therefore the Earth belongs to humans.

And then you have the fact that the ancestors of some 'First Nations' in Canada are not actually from Canada but from the United States and moved to Canada after the revolutionary wars and even later than that since Canada was a more 'native-friendly' place.

Then you have the issue of why do we not apply the same standards of 'indigenous people somehow own land that their ancestors lived near' to other populations. If my ancestry involves people from England, does that mean that I have indigenous rights to England and that Pakistani immigrants in England should give me money for living on my ancestral land? Should a person with Ainu ancestry have the option to live on a tax-free native reserve in Japan, where they are not allowed property rights and various services are provided to them from the Japanese government?

Then there is the issue of how do you deal with mixed race people. Does a half native person have half the indigenous rights of a full native person, or the full rights? If it is the full rights, then doesn't a 1% native person also have full native rights? If it is half the indigenous rights, then shouldn't we DNA sequence every single Canadian to determine how much tax exempt status, fishing rights, hunting rights, etc. they should get? Or does this not seem ridiculous to you yet?

Lastly you have the issue of what time-frame to take when determining whose ancestors are native to where? In history there have been countless migrations. If we go back 100,000 years, all humans are in East or Central Africa, so using 100,000 years ago means that all humans have indigenous rights to Africa but no indigenous rights to anywhere else. If we use 40,000 years ago, humans have spread to Eurasia and Australia but the Eurasian population has yet to significantly diversify into different races. This means that the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, the 'First Nations' etc. can all claim to be indigenous to most of Eurasia and no one can claim to be indigenous to the Americas during this time period. If we use 10,000 years ago, the Clovis migration has occurred so most of the descendants of 'First Nations' are now in the Americas, but the Paleo-Eskimo people have yet to cross the Berring Strait, so does that mean we can consider Non-Eskimo Amer-Indians to be indigenous to the Americas but not the Inuit? Or maybe we use 400 years ago as the base, in which case we the Quebecois are indigenous to Quebec.

And how does the fact that most people of Non-African decent have about 5% of their DNA from neanderthals. Where do neanderthals fit into all of this? They are an entirely different species!

Anyway, in order for the treaties and all these racist laws to have validity, the natives had to own the land in the first place in order to give the land to the crown under treaties. But this premise is seriously questionable and the only solution I can see to deal with all these questions is to forget the whole idea of people owning land based on where their ancestors are from and instead treat people equally under the law.

Anyway, that is just one of the unproven premises. I'll write more later but I'm a bit tired.

Edit: sorry for the many typos

Edited February 1, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[jacee]

For one thing, the government can issue legislation specifying/restricting how the treaties may be interpreted... and that is often the point of contention, overly broad interpretations of treaty wording by judges.

I don't believe the government can override the Constitution or treaties with legislation.

It is the courts' responsibility to interpret and apply the laws. Legislation can be struck down by the courts.

Secondly, greater effort should be taken to try to come up with a new framework for relations between Canadians and natives through negotiation between the involved parties, one that is based on ideas suitable for the modern world, and preferably one that realizes that all peoples within the geographic borders of Canada are one nation and gets rid of racial discrimination.

Modern treaties are being negotiated, but Aboriginal rights can only be dissolved with consent of both parties. Not likely.

Trudeau tried to do it unilaterally and failed.

Harper tried to make it a condition of signing modern treaties .. and failed.

Lastly, treaties can be broken, and often are broken. If an ancient treaty creates a modern injustice and there is no realistic way to amend it, then one can simply declare that it will no longer be honored. A country loses some trust/reputation for doing so, but nothing irreparable, much like declaring bankruptcy makes it harder to borrow money in the short term, but is something that can be recovered from over time.

A country might lose more than that ... like access to resources.

Harper lost his bid for a seat on the UN Security Council due to his initial failure to sign the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There are many more ramifications of breaking treaties than you suggest, losing elections for one.

We are a complex country, and we have to live with that respectfully.

Edited February 1, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

No, you are strawmaning my position. Yes the laws and treaties were made during a time when many immoral positions were the social norm but that doesn't prove or disprove whether or no treaties, laws, Indian act, reserve system, etc. that result in the inherently racist laws we have today (which also contribute greatly to First Nations poverty due to lack of individual property rights) are moral or immoral.

No strawman involved. Just pointed out the fallacy in your argument. You even acknowledge it above by stating that having immoral positions at the time doesn't prove or disprove these laws as being moral or immoral. That was my point. The laws themselves are separate from the people who drafted them. Clearly they had the authority back then to draft these laws and the fact that these laws exist today means that their authority continues....like it has with other parts of our constitution.

With that being said, I am not in favor of the Indian Act or reserve system. If you would have read my first post responding to yours you would easily see that. Like I said, I have no problems with the treaties they signed. The treaties were intended to allow development in a safe manner. Moreso, I believe the intent of the British signing those treaties was for it to create a system of assmiliation over a while. I don't believe they ever thought we would still have this today. So when I say we should respect the treaties, I mean to the word of the treaties. They get $5 per year. They can have their reserve land. They can even hunt on our land. But ultimately they have no other rights to this land and can't dictate what we do with it. If these treaties were ACTUALLY held up then the natives would have abandoned them long ago. Instead we have some vauge interpretation that allows this to perpetuate.

Uhh... laws relating to stealing and murder change all the time. Canada does not have capital punishment for murder unlike some countries. Canada does not sever off the hands of those that steal, unlike those that practice Sharia law.

Actually no. The punishment for these laws have changed however it has always been against the law to steal or murder. Nothing changed there.

You seem to have a tendency to want to derive morality from some charters, laws, constitutions, holy books or whatever from the past... Why? Why can't the morality of something be argued on its own merits? Can you not reason your arguments without appeal to authority?

No. I was showing you that our CURRENT system is still based on these past systems. Unlike you I am focused on the individual laws and not the time they were drafted or the moral landscape at the time. You seem to dismiss the people that drafted these laws simply because they live in a time where women or natives couldn't vote or where homosexuality was illegal.

Oh...and no....I don't gather it from holy books or consitution. I am very aware that laws can be changed and should be reviewed constantly to ensure that we are doing things morally. However avoiding the fact that our current consitution is based on such past immoral representations is purely foolish.

Are you saying this helps your arguments? Was the time periods of the manga carta and the BNA more moral then when the treaties were signed? No.

Look, the manga carta, the BNA act, the royal proclamation, etc. could be 10 trillion years old for all I care. The only thing that matters is their content, not their age.

You are the one dismissing laws because of their age. Remember...the 250 year thing! I simply stated that we still have some laws from that time showing that age is NOT an issue.

I hardly call 100+ years ago 'modern times'.

Its actually 100 minus...but who's counting (we know you're not). With that being said, we have continued to uphold these laws so they are renewed every year....meaning they are current until we decide to make them not current. Age has nothing to do with it.

Strawmaning my position again. I never said that you said that you thought that they were a sovereign nation. You said that they consider themselves as a sovereign nation, so should be dealt with as a sovereign nation. I then asked the reasonable question if I consider myself a sovereign nation, should the government deal with me as a sovereign nation? The question was to show the ridiculous nature of your original claim.

First....show me where I said they should be dealt with as a sovereign nation. Please I beg you to show me this. Second....in your quote you admit that I never thought them to be sovereign nations.....so why in your wildest dreams would you think that I would think they should be treated as sovereign nations?????

Please read. It helps you understand.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

Sigh, fine I state a few of them.

Take the claim as simple as 'We signed treaties with them, therefore we have an obligation to uphold the treaties'.

Sorry drama queen....didn't mean to be a bother!!!

Again...read my comments about treaties and you'll know why I say this.

[Michael Hardner]

AN - if you're getting frustrated, then step away for awhile rather than getting into insult territory. You'll be glad you did.

[jacee]

Like I said, I have no problems with the treaties they signed. The treaties were intended to allow development in a safe manner. Moreso, I believe the intent of the British signing those treaties was for it to create a system of assmiliation over a while. I don't believe they ever thought we would still have this today. So when I say we should respect the treaties, I mean to the word of the treaties. They get $5 per year. They can have their reserve land. They can even hunt on our land. But ultimately they have no other rights to this land and can't dictate what we do with it.

In your opinion, of course.

But that isn't the legal reality.

Despite all of our attempts to destroy Indigenous Nations, some quite heinous, and with or without treaty, Aboriginal rights exist and are recognized and affirmed in law in Canada.

This is the country you live in.

Love it or leave it.

[Bonam]

Love it or leave it.

Doesn't work that way.

Love it or leave it or change it.

[TimG]

Despite all of our attempts to destroy Indigenous Nations, some quite heinous, and with or without treaty, Aboriginal rights exist and are recognized and affirmed in law in Canada.

Until those laws are changed. No matter what you think it is within the power of the democratic majority of Canadians to put limits and/or restrictions on native rights as they see fit. In some case it would require a constitutional amendment but it is still possible. The idea that native rights as claimed today by native activists are untouchable is absurd. If enough people are pissed off they will be taken away no matter what the native activists may say. Edited February 1, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Doesn't work that way.

Love it or leave it or change it.

That too.

But the existence of Aboriginal rights is not going to change except by consent of each Indigenous Nation.

If it was possible otherwise, Harper would have done it already.

.

.

Edited February 1, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Until those laws are changed. No matter what you think it is within the power of the democratic majority of Canadians to put limits and/or restrictions on native rights as they see fit. In some case it would require a constitutional amendment but it is still possible. The idea that native rights as claimed today by native activists are untouchable is absurd. If enough people are pissed off they will be taken away no matter what the native activists may say.

Democratic majority won't do it.

See above.

[Remiel]

First Nations contend that blood quantum is a racist concept imposed on them. I think their view is more cultural. As has been pointed one does not have to be ethnically English to be part of the "English" nation, one does not have to have a certain number of Iroquois ancestors to be part of one of the Six Nations. This is a reasonable contention, but there is still a lot of disentangling to do between that and assimilation. I get the feeling that this is one of the places where a native superiority complex bubbles out: if a person has any claim to being part of an indigenous nation then that is where they "belong" and if they do not participate then Canada has "assimilated" them (and assimilation is supposed to be bad). There does not seem to be a lot of credence given to the notion that some of these people with mixed national backgrounds just ought to belong to the Canadian nation first and foremost.