Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 Anyway, it seems this law would contravene the charter. Whether it not you consider yourself Canadian doesn't change the fact that your subject to Canadian law and constitution. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Even if we go back to the more narrow view of this topic, what are you proposing ? That non-Natives be permitted to reside and/or own property on "Six Nations of the Grand River Indian lands" without restriction ? How would it be possible to mediate this narrow issue without opening up the whole can of worms that is the Indian Act ? I needn't remind you that native people didn't create this mess in the first place. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 What would be wrong with non aboriginals living there? Who created this mess is completely separate from who is perpetuating it. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 What would be wrong with non aboriginals living there? Who created this mess is completely separate from who is perpetuating it. Nothing wrong in my view, but I am not an "aboriginal". If one accepts that natives have the right to self determination in the context of existing laws and "Acts", then such limits can be imposed. You are correct in that the existing framework would have to be scrapped, and that ain't gonna happen. The Charter is nearly useless because of weasel words in Section 1.: 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 This isn't reasonably justifiable Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 This isn't reasonably justifiable OK...how many non-Natives should be permitted to reside there ? Any number greater than zero opens up native lands for everybody, undermining the very concept enshrined in the "racist" Indian Act. This is a Gordian Knot that was not created by native people. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) White people are privileged wherever they live in Canada. Keeping them off reserves is not racism because they're not disadvantaged by the decision in any way whatsoever. You people fail time and again to account for how racism is about power and privilege. Edited June 21, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Ummm...OK...does that mean that a band member can become Canada's head of state, and live in a palace ?we've had a Hatian and a refugee from Hong Kong as our Head of State, there's not reason a band member couldn't be. Edited June 21, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
Guest Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 White people are privileged wherever they live in Canada. Keeping them off reserves is not racism because they're not disadvantaged by the decision in any way whatsoever. You people fail time and again to account for how racism is about power and privilege. Discrimination based on race is racism. Power and Privilege have nothing to do with the definition. I looked at the photo of that guy and his family. It looks to me like he's going to be disadvantaged. Quote
jacee Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 1) Why was the residency by-law enacted? If the need has disappeared then I'm sure its a defunct law on the books they are bound by.I think you may be right about that.It sounds like there has been and will be discussion about the bylaw and families. Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 There shouldn't be native specific legislation. It was a mistake that was made by the British long before this country was founded, and it's a mistake that continues to this day. Im not sure it was a mistake... In fact the deal we struck with the natives is probably the most lucrative and the best deal ever negotiated. A huge huge score for us. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Discrimination based on race is racism. Power and Privilege have nothing to do with the definition.The sillyness of the definition is really evident here because on the reserve the power and the privilege belong to natives so it IS technically racism according to cyber's definition. But cyber does not care because he will just keep drawing lines on a map until he finds one with enough white people to excuse any non-white person of racism. Quote
TimG Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Im not sure it was a mistake... In fact the deal we struck with the natives is probably the most lucrative and the best deal ever negotiated. A huge huge score for us.Who's "us"? I certainly had nothing to do with what some people did or did not do 200 years ago and I really don't give damn. I had access to exactly the same government services and opportunities as any native person my age (in many cases, I had access to a lot less). If I am doing well it has nothing to do with deals made 200 years ago since any native in Canada ALSO benefits from those same deals (i.e. I gained no comparative advantage from said deals). Everyone in Canada today has benefited because land was transferred from a stone age culture into the hands of an industrialized culture. Edited June 21, 2014 by TimG Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 White people are privileged wherever they live in Canada. According to the six nations, he wasn't in Canada. The policy is racist. Pretend all you want. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 According to the six nations, he wasn't in Canada. The policy is racist. Pretend all you want. The entire framework is "racist"...who created it ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Nothing in the indian act says that non band members can't live on reserve - although I do agree it's institutionalized racism, and it and every native specific piece of legislation and constitutional framing should be done away with. You cant do away with it without their consent. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 You cant do away with it without their consent. Exactly...well you actually could. Agreement between all 11 sovereign legislative bodies would allow for any change to occur. Quote
Shady Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 White people are privileged wherever they live in Canada. Keeping them off reserves is not racism because they're not disadvantaged by the decision in any way whatsoever. You people fail time and again to account for how racism is about power and privilege. This disgusting defence of pure racism is very unbecoming. Forget about the evil white person involved, and take into consideration that this could be used against any race other than Six Nations. Your knee-jerk defence of anyone Brown needs to stop. From you and your ilk. You think you're doing them a favour, but you're not. It's the exact opposite. Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 The entire framework is "racist"...who created it ? The British messed up... Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Who's "us"? I certainly had nothing to do with what some people did or did not do 200 years ago and I really don't give damn. I had access to exactly the same government services and opportunities as any native person my age (in many cases, I had access to a lot less). If I am doing well it has nothing to do with deals made 200 years ago since any native in Canada ALSO benefits from those same deals (i.e. I gained no comparative advantage from said deals). Everyone in Canada today has benefited because land was transferred from a stone age culture into the hands of an industrialized culture. It matters not one iota if you give a damn or not. We made a deal with them, and they have to honor the terms of that deal every bit as much as we do. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Shady Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 It matters not one iota if you give a damn or not. We made a deal with them, and they have to honor the terms of that deal every bit as much as we do. Racism is racism. No matter the terms of deals, or contexts. Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 Since the deal was bad for both parties, you'd think we'd want to change it. I certainly do. Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 Racism is racism. No matter the terms of deals, or contexts. He should challenge the law in court...not that the six nations would care. Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 The British messed up... How? They got an entire continent for some beads, trinkets, a bit of land, and promise to throw natives table scraps in the future. If thats messing up, then we should mess up more. Do you think for one second that if somehow another new continent was found, that we wouldnt JUMP at the chance to make the same deal again? Like I said... we made out like bandits. An absolute score. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 You're obviously more removed from the situation than me. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.