dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Racism is racism. No matter the terms of deals, or contexts. Yeah it so happens I agree with you. That statute is racist and I dont like it. Not only does it unfairly target other ethnic groups but it unfairly restricts the right of indians to choose who they please as a mate. But lets not get carried away here... this was a bad law made 40 years ago. There's white people on reserves all over this country. 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 (edited) 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."we" did not make any deals. Deals were made between European settlers and native groups 200 years ago which were independent nations at that time. Since the the settlers and native groups have merged to create a single country and these "deals" have been interpreted to mean that descendants of native groups get a sorts of race based privileges in addition to the benefits they get from being part of Canada. You can pretend that history justifies race based privileges but you are just repeating the mantra of every racist from time immemorial. The only thing that you are right about is that legally these privileges exist until the majority of Canadians decide they want to take them away by changing the constitution. Edited June 21, 2014 by TimG Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 You're obviously more removed from the situation than me. I somehow doubt that. In any case thats an appeal to authority not an argument. 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 It's not a good deal really, not for anyone. It holds back aboriginal people and Canadian economic development. Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) "we" did not make any deals. Deals were made between European settlers and native groups 200 years ago which were independent nations at that time. Since the the settlers and native groups have merged to create a single country and these "deals" have been interpreted to mean that descendants of native groups get a sorts of race based privileges in addition to the benefits they get from being part of Canada. You can pretend that history justifies race based privileges but you are just repeating the mantra of every racist from time immemorial. "we" did not make any deals. Yeah thats EXACTLY what we did. You can pretend that history justifies race based privileges but you are just repeating the mantra of every racist from time immemorial. Jesus... The only thing that you are right about is that legally these privileges exist until the majority of Canadians decide they want to take them away by changing the constitution. That might be a wet dream for you but its not going to happen. And the courts would uphold those treaties regardless of any constitutional amendment. Edited June 21, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 It's not a good deal really, not for anyone. It holds back aboriginal people and Canadian economic development. Its a great deal, and anyone would make it over and over again if given the chance. And far from holding back Canadian economic development, the lands that those treaties gave us rights to are the entire underpinning of our economic development. 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 (edited) Yeah thats EXACTLY what we did.No "we" did not. You keep repeating this nonsense as if it would make it true. Neither of us was living 200 years ago so "we" could not make any deals. What you attempting to do is claim that "we" benefit from the deals but so does every native living in Canada today since they are equal citizens. What this means "we" have gained nothing from these deals when compared to natives living today (since any natives have shared in the benefits). And the courts would uphold those treaties regardless of any constitutional amendment.If they did they would completely undermine the legitimacy of the Canadian state. The basic premise of all constitutions is they can be modified. As long as the rules are followed the courts cannot object. If they do they would simply set the stage for an ever greater constitutional showdown where the courts themselves are stripped of their powers to make such decisions. Or are you now going to argue that Canadians cannot change the constitutional rules regarding the power of courts or that the courts are allowed to strike down amendments that changed their powers? Edited June 21, 2014 by TimG Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 Its a great deal, and anyone would make it over and over again if given the chance. And far from holding back Canadian economic development, the lands that those treaties gave us rights to are the entire underpinning of our economic development. The land was to be British anyway. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 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.Says the guy who used to call Obama the "affirmative action president". Don't feign indignation with me, son. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Enjoy your hate parade......you've attracted the attention of the rhetoric baiters you wanted.....enjoy. Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 How is this a hate parade? I've called out racism from more than aboriginals before, this is simply an issue that's very important to me. Quote
jacee Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) No "we" did not. You keep repeating this nonsense as if it would make it true. Neither of us was living 200 years ago so "we" could not make any deals.Ah ... so you don't agree with the laws that created Canada.The basic premise of all constitutions is they can be modified. As long as the rules are followed the courts cannot object.And you don't agree with the Constitution Act. If they do they would simply set the stage for an ever greater constitutional showdown where the courts themselves are stripped of their powers to make such decisions.And you think the courts should be stripped of their powers if they uphold the Constitution Act and the Treaties.Mhmm ... and we're supposed to take you seriously? Tell me ... what utopian country would you prefer to live in? . Edited June 21, 2014 by jacee Quote
Topaz Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 By the Aunt complaining, she knew that he would be toss out, but what would happen if HE was a FN?? What if the property was in his wife's name, would he still be kick out? I think her target could have been HIM because what has change because of her complaint....just that he's gone. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 The way the by-law is written, all non-registered band members are excluded, meaning other non-band "FN" as well. So a finding of "racist" discrimination against "whites" would be hard to sustain in court. Perhaps he could prevail for a different reason. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Remiel Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 The way the by-law is written, all non-registered band members are excluded, meaning other non-band "FN" as well. So a finding of "racist" discrimination against "whites" would be hard to sustain in court. Perhaps he could prevail for a different reason. I must have woken up in an alternate universe, because I find myself in pretty much complete agreement with bc2004 here. The law is not racist. Perhaps the people applying the law are racist, but that is not the same thing at all. Six Nations of the Grand River is not my favourite band, to understate my sentiment towards them, but the fact is this law would permit them to throw out even any Six Nations members who were not members of the Grand River band. Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 The application of the law is certainly racist. The law itself discriminates based on group, and is probably just as unconstitutional. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 How is this a hate parade? I've called out racism from more than aboriginals before, this is simply an issue that's very important to me.I rarely see you calling out racism against aboriginals, despite there being mountains of research showing systemic and institutionalized racism against them. You're constantly going on about how racist the First Nations are, but not once do I see you standing up for them or complaining about the very real imbalance of power that they face. Quote
Remiel Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 I am guessing you just do not want to understand that FN are entitled to determine who lives on their territory. Maybe you should put up a sign at your house, "Feel free to squat here, it would be unconstitutional for me to discriminate against the members of the group of all people not including me." Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 No "we" did not. You keep repeating this nonsense as if it would make it true. Neither of us was living 200 years ago so "we" could not make any deals. What you attempting to do is claim that "we" benefit from the deals but so does every native living in Canada today since they are equal citizens. What this means "we" have gained nothing from these deals when compared to natives living today (since any natives have shared in the benefits). If they did they would completely undermine the legitimacy of the Canadian state. The basic premise of all constitutions is they can be modified. As long as the rules are followed the courts cannot object. If they do they would simply set the stage for an ever greater constitutional showdown where the courts themselves are stripped of their powers to make such decisions. Or are you now going to argue that Canadians cannot change the constitutional rules regarding the power of courts or that the courts are allowed to strike down amendments that changed their powers? No "we" did not. You keep repeating this nonsense as if it would make it true. Neither of us was living 200 years ago so "we" could not make any deals. This is just ridiculous. "WE" are a nation, and the treaties and agreements we make with others become part of our own laws. We werent alive when our border with the US was negotiated either... guess that means we dont have to honor it? ROFLMAO. If they did they would completely undermine the legitimacy of the Canadian state. No it would do the exact opposite. The basic premise of all constitutions is they can be modified. I never said they couldnt be modified. I said that even if they were it would not remove our legal obligation to honor treaties signed by the crown in good faith. Even if the Indian Act was repealed those treaties are still law, and the courts would force the government to find another way to implement them. Not to mention we made a deal that gave us access to a huge ammount of land and resources. It would be extremely stupid to undo that deal because thats deal is what provides the legal underpinning for our existance as a state on this land. where the courts themselves are stripped of their powers to make such decisions. where the courts themselves are stripped of their powers to make such decisions. Getting into school-boy laugher territory here.... You guys are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that the ONLY legal way to change our relationship with natives is through negotiation. All the rest of your crap is just wet dreams and silly fantasies. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Remiel Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Cross-generational nations are a kind of legal fiction. A very durable kind, but by themselves they are not sufficient to carry an argument. Edited June 21, 2014 by Remiel Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 The constitution can be changed without any negotiation with aboriginal people. They don't have a special veto on amendments. Quote
dre Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 The constitution can be changed without any negotiation with aboriginal people. They don't have a special veto on amendments. I already answered this. Changing the constitution would not dissolve the treaties. The constitution says... The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. It affirms treaty rights, but that does not mean the constitution is necessary to make those treaties legally binding, and the courts have already ruled that they are. In a nation of laws the government cant just throw out contracts it makes with other parties. Legal agreements are enforcable in the courts (as they should be). Furthermore, dissolving those treaties would be an extremely stupid idea because not only would the natives lose their treaty rights but we would lose our treaty rights as well (all the land rights we negotiated for ourselves in the treaties) which would result in a situation where natives could make claims in the courts for WAY WAY WAY more territory and assets than they can now. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jacee Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 The constitution can be changed without any negotiation with aboriginal people. They don't have a special veto on amendments. Are you and TimG seriously suggesting that we open Constitutional talks to remove Aboriginal rights? Well, first of all ... Dream on! Secondly ... a reminder: that the Crown has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate when the Crown contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights. ... consultation and accommodation that:acknowledges and respects the Crowns unique relationships with Aboriginal peoples; http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675 Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2014 Author Report Posted June 21, 2014 You both understand that the duty to consult only exists because of Constitutional framing, I hope. Aboriginal rights should be changed. As things exist, this isn't a fair and just society for anyone because of this one issue. Canada works reasonably well...except here. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.