White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[Smallc]

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.

They are part of us now...as we are of them. That's the problem with the current arrangement.

[dre]

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).

It doesnt make any difference who benefited and how much. We signed agreements with these people that allowed us to use vast tracts of land for development, mining, agriculture etc. In exchange for all that land we have to throw them tablescraps, and give them rights to hunt and fish, etc. None of this has anything to do with who has an advantage over who. Even if every single native Canadian was filthy rich they would still be entitled to the rights/privileges that we traded for all that land.

Edited June 24, 2014 by dre

[jacee]

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).

You know - or acknowledge - so little about Canada's history of attempting to destroy Indigenous Peoples that it's hardly worth trying to discuss this with you.

Suffice it to say that hundreds of years of slow genocide can't be undone in a single generation.

When the UN passed the Convention on Genocide in 1948, Canada started to take notice, started changing some genocidal laws and practices ... but it's a long process, barely begun.

Canada didn't ratify the Convention on genocide until 2000 ... four years after the last government funded residential school closed.

.

[jacee]

They are part of us now...as we are of them. That's the problem with the current arrangement.

Just curious ... do you also seek to destroy the "distinct society" status of the "Quebecois nation"?

Do you accept that Canada has three founding peoples and three legal tradions - Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code and British Common Law?

Are you even Canadian?

.

[Smallc]

Just curious ... do you also seek to destroy the "distinct society" status of the "Quebecois nation"?

Do you accept that Canada has three founding peoples and three legal tradions - Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code and British Common Law?

Are you even Canadian?

.

That's not the same thing. An aboriginal arrangement that mirrored that of Quebec would bother me not in any way.

[jacee]

Existing - as in before 1982.

Existing - also before 1763.

Existing - pre-contact.

Twisting the truth may allow you to keep your delusions and even write a book full of them ... but it doesn't make them truth ... or Canadian law.

Are you even Canadian?

[Smallc]

Existing - also before 1763.

Existing - pre-contact.

Twisting the truth may allow you to keep your delusions and even write a book full of them ... but it doesn't make them truth ... or Canadian law.

Are you even Canadian?

There is no Canadian law outside of Canadian jurisdiction. You keep that nonsensical line going. It's an impossible idea. Rights simply can't exist without come kind of protective legal framework. Edited June 24, 2014 by Smallc

[Smallc]

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

But is never above the supremacy of the Constitution or Parliament.

[Accountability Now]

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.

You didn't highlight the most important part so I took care of it for you. They have ceded the land by treaty which for the most part stated the following:

"the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter more fully described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands"

All rights, titles and priviledges. Pretty clear to everyone except the bleeding heart courts.

[dre]

But is never above the supremacy of the Constitution or Parliament.

Its Canadian law. The parliament can withdraw from those treaties if they want to but if the legislative branch writes laws that are at odds with those agreements the high court can strike those laws down.

But I dont see the point in going around and around in circles for another 10 pages. Its all moot. No constitutional amendment with the goal of stripping natives of their treaty rights will EVER be passed.

[Smallc]

Actually it probably will be passed at some point. Just not for a very long time.

[Smallc]

You didn't highlight the most important part so I took care of it for you.

There's also the part about the Crown being sovereign over all land, and aboriginal people being 'under their protection'...but he left that out. Edited June 24, 2014 by Smallc

[jacee]

There is no Canadian law outside of Canadian jurisdiction. You keep that nonsensical line going. It's an impossible idea. Rights simply can't exist without come kind of protective legal framework.

There was law before Canada.

Are you Canadian?

Why won't you answer that?

.

[jacee]

There's also the part about the Crown vein sovereign over all land, and aboriginal people being 'under their protection'...but he left that out.

she.

And we've already discussed that.

So ... you are not Canadian and you seek to destroy what we're attempting to build.

I just wanted to get that straight.

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by jacee

[Smallc]

There was law before Canada.

Are you Canadian?

Why won't you answer that?

.

What kind of question is that? It isn't even relevant.

[jacee]

What kind of question is that? It isn't even relevant.

It certainly is very relevant.

Disrespecting and trying to mislead people, denigrating Canadian law ... those are privileges reserved for Canadians.

So ... are you?

.

[Smallc]

she.

And we've already discussed that.

So ... you are not Canadian and you seek to destroy what we're attempting to build.

I just wanted to get that straight.

.

I want no part in what you want to build. Most Canadians would agree fully with a society where all have equal status and rights.

[dre]

Actually it probably will be passed at some point. Just not for a very long time.

Only in your wildest dreams. The governments approach is to negotiate new treaties not to violate both Canadian and International law.

[Bonam]

Actually it probably will be passed at some point. Just not for a very long time.

More recent immigrants to Canada generally seem to have little interest in treaties that white people signed with natives long ago. What does an immigrant from China care about a deal between an English king and a native chief? Most of my Asian friends in Vancouver, for example, see the whole native situation as preposterous and laugh at ideas of "royal proclamations" and recent court interpretations which they see as being based on nothing but "white guilt" and not applicable to themselves. Immigrants from non-European countries are soon to be majorities in Canadian cities and sometime thereafter in Canada as a whole, and the democratic process will take its course. These changes might not take a "very long time" at all considering Canada's rapidly changing demographics.

[Smallc]

Only in your wildest dreams. The governments approach is to negotiate new treaties not to violate both Canadian and International law.

You can't violate laws and Constitutional documents that you can change. The treaties are with the Crown, but the Crown is sovereign over them. Edited June 24, 2014 by Smallc

[dre]

I want no part in what you want to build. Most Canadians would agree fully with a society where all have equal status and rights.

Even in a society with equal status and rights different parties can still contract with each other as they see fit.

This isnt about equal status and rights. They dont get the things they get because they are of a certain race or culture, they get them because they traded millions and millions of acres of land for them.

[Smallc]

It's a crazy arrangement that we created in 1763 they benefits no one at current.

[Big Guy]

One of the major “hot spots” of confrontations between aboriginals and locals has been in Caledonia in Southern Ontario. An aboriginal group occupied a private development site and have been able to hang on to it for over 8 years as negotiations have been going on. They are also blockading streets on the periphery. The local municipal council has been caught between the province and the federal government, each pointing fingers at each other and nothing has been getting done.

Looks like things are coming to a head again with tempers starting to build and the municipality intending to physically regain some property on the outskirts.

http://www.simcoereformer.ca/2014/06/24/haldimand-plans-to-remove-barrier-at-douglas-creek-estate

It is going to be a long, hot summer down there.

[Smallc]

And yes, it's all about equal status and rights. Your position is in support of feudalism.

[dre]

More recent immigrants to Canada generally seem to have little interest in treaties that white people signed with natives long ago. What does an immigrant from China care about a deal between an English king and a native chief? Most of my Asian friends in Vancouver, for example, see the whole native situation as preposterous and laugh at ideas of "royal proclamations" and recent court interpretations which they see as being based on nothing but "white guilt" and not applicable to themselves. Immigrants from non-European countries are soon to be majorities in Canadian cities and sometime thereafter in Canada as a whole, and the democratic process will take its course. These changes might not take a "very long time" at all considering Canada's rapidly changing demographics.

I dont see what white guilt has to do with it. If I make a deal with a black person to trade his property for my promise of future payments, then I say to him "Im keeping your property but Im going to stop making the payments"... and the court finds I breached my contract... is that "White guilt"?

Even if the natives here happened to be white scandinavians it wouldnt make any difference. Its not about race its about breach of contract.