White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[Smallc]

See Cyber, this is what I was getting that. You would agree, wouldn't you, that nothing in Canada can exist outside of the jurisdiction of the Crown, correct?

[dre]

See Cyber, this is what I was getting that. You would agree, wouldn't you, that nothing in Canada can exist outside of the jurisdiction of the Crown, correct?

I agree with that.... but it just doesnt matter. Our agreements and treaties should and will be honored. Nobody thats paying attention should have any real question about that at all.

[Smallc]

Of course they will be. As it stands they have to be. It also stands that one party can change them without the consent of the other - that is the party with real sovereignty.

[Smallc]

We should honour them...on the other hand they shouldn't exist, because they do nothing but harm aboriginal people.

[dre]

We should honour them...on the other hand they shouldn't exist, because they do nothing but harm aboriginal people.

Well thats an opinion. The bottom line is that we cant really know for sure if they harm them or not.

In any case all we can do is negotiate with them.

[overthere]

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.

I actually think you believe this ^.

"TRANSFERRED"? It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry when I read this in 2014. You gained no competitive advantage? Your entire life in Canada is an acquired advantage.

Another fact that will chap the collective ass: First Nations groups often get to define their own membership. Imagine.

[Smallc]

It's not just an opinion. As in any country treaties are not supreme over the constitution. The interest of Canada especially since the treaties are only dealing with different governing models in Canada and not other countries. The Constitution is supreme and where it isn't, supremacy falls to Parliament.

[overthere]

It's not just an opinion. As in any country treaties are not supreme over the constitution. The interest of Canada especially since the treaties are only dealing with different governing models in Canada and not other countries. The Constitution is supreme and where it isn't, supremacy falls to Parliament.

Did you know that Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution protects aboriginal rights, including these very same treaties?

[Smallc]

Do you have a point?

[dre]

It's not just an opinion. As in any country treaties are not supreme over the constitution. The interest of Canada especially since the treaties are only dealing with different governing models in Canada and not other countries. The Constitution is supreme and where it isn't, supremacy falls to Parliament.

You didnt look at what I quoted...

because they do nothing but harm aboriginal people

Thats the part that I said was an opinion.

As for the other argument... Yes... Clearly a tyrannical government could tear up our constitution and do pretty much anything it wants. They could even write legislation that made it legal to just kill them all I guess or heard them into concentration camps. THe point is... so what? Thats not going to happen so we might as well stay tuned into reality.

[Smallc]

I was simply arguing theoretically...against the argument that aboriginal rights exist somehow outside of Canadian jurisdiction.

[Smallc]

And it's not just an opinion that it's harming them. I see it every day.

[overthere]

Do you have a point?

Why would you imply that treaties are somehow supreme, when in fact the treaty rights of First Nations are part and parcel of our Constituion? That is not an opinion.

Your inference that guarantees of First Nations rights are somehow subservient to the Constituion is wrong and misleading. They are part of the Constitution.

[dre]

And it's not just an opinion that it's harming them. I see it every day.

Yes it is an opinion. You see anecdotal evidence of how some natives lives as things are now, but you dont know if they would be better off without the treaties. Thats just an opinion and a guess.

[jacee]

The Crown made it very clear in the proclamation even. Under our protection - they thought of aboriginal people as less than human at the time, like children - meant under their control and jurisdiction, just not that of the settlers.

... in your opinion.

Sovereignty over land and sovereignty of peoples are different issues that you seem to want to mix together.

I'll grant you that it's a gray area, but I don't think our government would welcome a challenge of sovereignty of peoples in the Supreme Court. "Distinct", "self-determination", "self-governing" are all words that are applied to First Nations in Canada in some contexts.

However, you may be interested to know that Indigenous Peoples of Canada and other countries support and accept the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples that identifies them as being "distinct", but also existing within 'States'.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/IPeoples/Pages/Declaration.aspx

... ensures their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own priorities in economic, social and cultural development. The Declaration explicitly encourages harmonious and cooperative relations between States and indigenous peoples.

There is nothing to be gained but distrust and acrimony by your continued campaign to denigrate and destroy Aboriginal rights and law in Canada.

.

[jacee]

Of course they will be. As it stands they have to be. It also stands that one party can change them without the consent of the other - that is the party with real sovereignty.

Not true.

Treaties can only be changed with the consent of both parties.

I understand where you're coming from: You're an atheist and you don't believe in a 'spiritual connection to the land' because you don't/can't have one and you don't think anyone else should either. But you are off base, out of line, p'ng in the wind if you think you can destroy Aboriginal rights in Canada.

This was their land first.

We made peace treaties that allow us to live here.

We are legally bound to honour those treaties.

Case closed.

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by jacee

[overthere]

Sovereignty over land and sovereignty of peoples are different issues that you seem to want to mix together.

I'll grant you that it's a gray area, but I don't think our government would welcome a challenge of sovereignty of peoples in the Supreme Court. "Distinct", "self-determination", "self-governing" are all words that are applied to First Nations in Canada in some contexts.

The right of First Nations to self government is not addressed in the Constitution, but the Government of Canada has had policies recognizing First Nations self governance since about the mid 90s. There are over 600 First Nations in the country now. I agree that the feds would like to avoid Supreme Court challenges on this. There are other reasons for this avoidance too, other than Constitutional.

[Smallc]

International law is meaningless within Canadian jurisdiction. Canadian law is supreme here. You're simply incorrect. Without 1763 aboriginal rights don't exist.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Smallc

[jacee]

International law is meaningless within Canadian jurisdiction. Canadian law is supreme here. You're simply incorrect. Without 1763 aboriginal rights don't exist.

Yes they did, and do.

And RP1763 does exist, and did recognize and respect Aboriginal rights that existed before contact.

Too bad, so sad.

eta ... And if Canada's Supreme Court egregiously violated rights and treaties, you can bet Indigenous Nations would be appealing to the International Courts.

US tribes already have, re the duty to be consulted about developments on their traditional lands ... and won ... and Canada suddenly started paying attention to the duty to consult.

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

The right of First Nations to self government is not addressed in the Constitution,

Yes it is: Self-government is an "existing Aboriginal right", because Indigenous Nations were self-governing pre-contact.

http://www.bctreaty.net/files/issues_selfgovern.php

but the Government of Canada has had policies recognizing First Nations self governance since about the mid 90s. There are over 600 First Nations in the country now.

Most First Nations are still under the (federally imposed) Indian Act, but a few have negotiated new treaties that include self-government. (eg, Nisga'a, Sechelt, Nunavut)

I agree that the feds would like to avoid Supreme Court challenges on this. There are other reasons for this avoidance too, other than Constitutional.

Do share.

[Smallc]

Yes they did, and do.

And RP1763 does exist.

Too bad, so sad.

.

Yes it does exist - that's the whole point - aboriginal rights, like those of all Canadians - flow from the Crown. Denial won't change that.

[TimG]

You gained no competitive advantage? Your entire life in Canada is an acquired advantage.

Any advantage that I may have gained by living in Canada was ALSO gained by any native living in Canada because all natives are also Canadians and benefit from living here. Therefore for I had no net advantage over natives. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

Frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that there are people who actually take this nonsense that non-natives have benefited in ways that natives have not or could not (no one forces natives to stay on reserves - if the Canadian advantage is so obvious then why don't they leave and take advantage of this advantage).

Edited June 24, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Yes it does exist - that's the whole point - aboriginal rights, like those of all Canadians - flow from the Crown. Denial won't change that.

Please read the Constitution:

"Existing aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed."

And ...

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/royal-proclamation-1763.html

. In the Royal Proclamation, ownership over North America is issued to King George. However, the Royal Proclamation explicitly states that Aboriginal title has existed and continues to exist, and that all land would be considered Aboriginal land until ceded by treaty.

...

Most Indigenous and legal scholars recognize the Royal Proclamation as an important first step toward the recognition of existing Aboriginal rightsand title, including the right to self-determination.

And those are the conditions under which Canada came to be, and will continue to exist.

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by jacee

[dre]

International law is meaningless within Canadian jurisdiction. Canadian law is supreme here. You're simply incorrect. Without 1763 aboriginal rights don't exist.

No, when Canada signs onto an international agreement or treaty that treaty becomes part of our laws and is enforcable by our own courts.

In any case... this is all moot. Unilaterally dissolving treaties signed in good faith, and forcing them to honor THEIR part in the treaties without us honoring OURS would be a huge mistake, and its just not gonna happen.

[Smallc]

Please read the Constitution:

"Existing aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed."

And ...

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/royal-proclamation-1763.html

. In the Royal Proclamation, ownership over North America is issued to King George. However, the Royal Proclamation explicitly states that Aboriginal title has existed and continues to exist, and that all land would be considered Aboriginal land until ceded by treaty.

...

Most Indigenous and legal scholars recognize the Royal Proclamation as an important first step toward the recognition of existing Aboriginal rightsand title, including the right to self-determination.

And those are the conitions under which Canada came to be, and will continue to exist.

.

Existing - as in before 1982.