Accountability Now Posted December 22, 2014 Report Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) That's already established: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_consult_and_accommodate Because wikipedia says it then it is so? Perhaps you should check with your satire websites and see what they say about it. As per the Aboriginal Affairs site: Part C provides a step-by-step, chronological guide for federal officials when fulfilling the Crown’s duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate. I guess your 'wikipedia' page forgot the key part.....'where appropriate". So as I said, the above ruling did not include accomodation as it apparently wasn't appropriate. It's the law to which new legislation must conform now. It was the law before the ruling and it didn't conform then. There is no new laws in place because of this just the same old gray area that outlines consultation and accomdate when appropriate. Edited December 22, 2014 by Accountability Now Quote
jacee Posted December 22, 2014 Author Report Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) It's all in process, scope and limits apply, and it's working its way out. And governments failing to facilitate meaningful consultation or consider it in legislating are being held to account too. . Edited December 22, 2014 by jacee Quote
Rocky Road Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 food for thought.... http://aptn.ca/news/2015/01/30/credit-card-proves-extravagant-spending-now-broke-aboriginal-owned-investment-company/ "An Aboriginal-owned investment group that was supposed to help end poverty on Manitoba First Nations instead blew its money on strippers, booze, fancy food and exotic trips, APTN Investigates has learned. Corporate credit card statements from Tribal Councils Investment Group show $13,000 spent over two days in 2012 at Sapphire, a high-end Vegas strip club. Another American Express statement shows $5,300 spent one day at “L.R. Inc Etobicoke.” A profile of strip clubs aimed at businessmen visiting Toronto on the website nowtoronto.com, says “The Landing Strip … (is a ) high-end club in west Etobicoke… for business discretion, strip chips charged to a client’s credit card appear as D.E. Limited or L.R. Inc.” Another statement shows a $3,800 dinner at Prime, a posh eatery at the Bellagio hotel in Vegas. Over the course of five days in January 2012, $3,900 was spent at Hy’s Steakhouse in Winnipeg. All of the charges were on credit card statements made out to former TCIG CEO Allan McLeod." & Derek Nepinak in Morocco. #MMAW Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 food for thought.... :g] I don't think it would be hard to find other non-aboriginal businesses that haven't done the same. You should hear some of the stories about the trips taken or purchases made in the oilfield just to buy contracts. The only difference that I can see is that the non-aboriginal businesses would be accountable to the CRA fit these taxable benefits. What accountability do the aboriginal companies have? Quote
jacee Posted February 4, 2015 Author Report Posted February 4, 2015 I don't think it would be hard to find other non-aboriginal businesses that haven't done the same. You should hear some of the stories about the trips taken or purchases made in the oilfield just to buy contracts. The only difference that I can see is that the non-aboriginal businesses would be accountable to the CRA fit these taxable benefits. What accountability do the aboriginal companies have? To the shareholders apparently: McLeod was overthrown in 2013, along with a handful of senior staff, in a coup by the tribal councils. . Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 To the shareholders apparently: McLeod was overthrown in 2013, along with a handful of senior staff, in a coup by the tribal councils. . Big deal. The guy still walks away with millions and not even a slap on the wrist in a legal sense. Others would be facing tax evasion from the CRA and possibly jail time. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Big deal. The guy still walks away with millions and not even a slap on the wrist in a legal sense. It's like 2008 all over again... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Accountability Now Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 It's like 2008 all over again... Touche! Quote
jacee Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Posted February 9, 2015 The choice: Incur years of court and costs for title, or extinguish all rights and get some money now. canada-responds-to-tsilhqotin-decision-extinguishment-or-nothing the objective of Aboriginal Affairs recent announcement on the land claims policy was not to reconcile the policy with the Supreme Courts findings on Aboriginal title, but to accelerate the policy framework of Aboriginal title extinguishment, particularly in the areas of major resource development projects like the proposed pipelines in British Columbia. The federal government is fighting tooth and nail against ceding an inch of legal authority over land despite the pronouncement from the highest court in the land. According to figures recently released by Parliament (as reported in the Law Times), oil and gas disputes have been the top expense for AANDC for the past three years. . Quote
jacee Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Posted February 13, 2015 "The discovery bulls, and others in the same vein that followed, gave Catholic explorers full and free power, authority, and jurisdiction of every kind and outlined their duty to lead the peoples dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion. If aboriginal people refused, the Vatican granted its envoys the authority to enslave and kill." /vatican-may-be-asked-to-repeal-catholic-edicts-on-'heathen'-aboriginals Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. Seriously....an apology from 15th century? What in the world will that do for these people??? Lol. Tell you what....get the Iriquois to apologize to the Cree and the Cree to apologize to the Sioux for their savage battles then we can talk about the Vatican. Too funny!! Quote
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. Seriously....an apology from 15th century? What in the world will that do for these people??? Lol. It would probably do a lot more than the church's apology to Galileo ever did. Were you standing in dumbstruck opposition to that too? Tell you what....get the Iriquois to apologize to the Cree and the Cree to apologize to the Sioux for their savage battles then we can talk about the Vatican. Too funny!! That's just the thing, the symbolic nature of an apology from an institution that provided and inspired the moral justification for an indigenous Holocaust could plant exactly the sort of reconciliatory seed the world could use right now. But maybe its the repudiatory nature of such an apology that has your sense of indignation twitching and your lol's and too funny's belie a deeper trepidation. I can see how the idea of getting the world's most powerful institutions to not just reconcile and apologize for their past crimes but also repudiate the justifications for committing them in the first place could shake whole cultures and belief systems to their very core. I'm pretty sure Galileo would get it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Accountability Now Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 It would probably do a lot more than the church's apology to Galileo ever did. Were you standing in dumbstruck opposition to that too? That's the sad part. If this apology is what they are waiting for to turn things around then I find it even more pathetic. 'Science' never waited for an apology to move on. However, in this particular case they aren't using this for an apolgy to move on but rather an apology to gain leverage on sovereignty talks. The apology for Galileo was purely symbollic. That's just the thing, the symbolic nature of an apology from an institution that provided and inspired the moral justification for an indigenous Holocaust could plant exactly the sort of reconciliatory seed the world could use right now. But maybe its the repudiatory nature of such an apology that has your sense of indignation twitching and your lol's and too funny's belie a deeper trepidation. The Canadian government, who was the direct and primary party responsible for the acts HAS apologized. But that wasn't good enough. Let's get one from the Vatican. What's next? The French government? The British government? The Protestant church? How about the direct descendants of Sir John A? What makes me twitch as you say is knowing this 'apology' they seek is just another attempt at leverage. Quote
jacee Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) It's called acknowledging the truth about history, AN, educating the public. You got a problem with that? More truth: discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas Researchers here say they have unearthed stone tools proving that humans reached what is now northeast Brazil as early as 22,000 years ago. Their discovery adds to the growing body of research upending a prevailing belief of 20th-century archaeology in the United States known as the Clovis model, which holds that people first arrived in the Americas from Asia about 13,000 years ago. If theyre right, and theres a great possibility that they are, that will change everything we know about the settlement of the Americas, said Walter Neves, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of São Paulo whose own analysis of an 11,000-year-old skull in Brazil implies that some ancient Americans resembled aboriginal Australians more than they did Asians. Edited February 13, 2015 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 It's called acknowledging the truth about history, AN, educating the public. You got a problem with that? Its about acknowledging truth? Or is it about leverage? As per your article: If the commission recommends the bulls be rescinded, Sinclair said, it has to weigh the legal implications, which could strike at the core of Crown sovereignty over land. “What would be the basis for rationalizing Crown sovereignty if the Doctrine of Discovery is no longer available?” Sinclair said. “We have to consider that question and perhaps give some direction about how that relationship can be re-established in a proper way . . . on a nation-to-nation level.” The truth is already out there jacee. Everyone knows that the Vatican and early government's were out to exterminate the aboriginals. It was crusader mentality of the times. Its fine if they want an apology but that is NOT their end game. They want leverage to assert their sovereignty to somehow change the past. Its not going to happen. I particularlily like how they are focusing on the edicts from 1400s but fail to see the later ones from the church stating: One bull, from 1537, stated: “Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property.” Hmm...is that truth going to be acknowledged too? Quote
PIK Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Jacee will, never understand until a native shows up and say you are living on my land ,get out. The natives are going to wake up a sleeping bear eventually and then...... Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
The_Squid Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Jacee will, never understand until a native shows up and say you are living on my land ,get out. The natives are going to wake up a sleeping bear eventually and then...... ... and then.... what? Quote
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 That's the sad part. If this apology is what they are waiting for to turn things around then I find it even more pathetic. 'Science' never waited for an apology to move on. However, in this particular case they aren't using this for an apolgy to move on but rather an apology to gain leverage on sovereignty talks. The apology for Galileo was purely symbollic. Sure it was symbolic and in the case of Galileo almost entirely to the church, the rest of us at best shook our heads and muttered, welcome to the future. Similarly I think and hope repudiating the Bulls would be of greater symbolic importance to cultures that are still largely coasting in the wake of the exceptionalism the Bulls put in motion. There is an inherent aggressiveness to the nature of our pursuit of self interests that is based on much the same fairy tales that inspired the Bulls. I think repudiating them would benefit everybody by making it a little more clear where that aggressiveness stems from and why. The Canadian government, who was the direct and primary party responsible for the acts HAS apologized. But that wasn't good enough. Let's get one from the Vatican. What's next? The French government? The British government? The Protestant church? How about the direct descendants of Sir John A? Heads of Governments and State along with Popes, Kings and Queens should suffice. What makes me twitch as you say is knowing this 'apology' they seek is just another attempt at leverage. Over stuff like land and resources and sovereignty and crap that barely means a thing to the average Canadian human being on the street, in the bush or out on the water. There will always be signs saying who can do this and can't do that and what, where, when and how but of course the more relevant question is why? Why is almost always the question that turns people's heads inside out trying to get their heads around all the other stuff. And the short answer is because of the fundamentally twisted view of reality that has guided and informed the authorities that have been governing our lives. We start getting past that then we'll have all the time we need to fuss, fart and sweat over the little shit like...sovereignty. Repudiation has nothing to do with changing the past it's about resetting the direction we're taking into the future. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jacee Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Posted February 13, 2015 Jacee will, never understand until a native shows up and say you are living on my land ,get out.Pik you are so misinformed it's pathetic.We have treaties that allow us to live here. Whether our government fulfilled the terms of the treaties - made appropriate payment - may be in question. But that's a nation to nation issue, not a homeowner issue. The natives are going to wake up a sleeping bear eventually and then......Oooooo the scary bear threat! Do you lie awake at nights thinking up things to be angry about/afraid of (same thing)? . Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Sure it was symbolic and in the case of Galileo almost entirely to the church, the rest of us at best shook our heads and muttered, welcome to the future. Which is exactly what I'm saying here. Similarly I think and hope repudiating the Bulls would be of greater symbolic importance to cultures that are still largely coasting in the wake of the exceptionalism the Bulls put in motion. There is an inherent aggressiveness to the nature of our pursuit of self interests that is based on much the same fairy tales that inspired the Bulls. I think repudiating them would benefit everybody by making it a little more clear where that aggressiveness stems from and why. Again...they are focused on the bulls from the 15th century. What about the bull from the 16th century which already addressed this? Now we are in the 21st century and still worried about something they corrected almost 500 years ago. One bull, from 1537, stated: “Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property.” Heads of Governments and State along with Popes, Kings and Queens should suffice. Canada has already apologized. Not sure if the Queen of England even matters anymore but maybe she could too. Having said that, what about the other First Nations tribes that warred amonst themselves. Are we going to see apologies for the brutal savagry they commitment upon other tribes causing near extinction? The point is that these events happened in a past where all was fair in love and war. We didn't have a Geneva convention to guide us so the thought that there may be consequences or implications of something that happened hundreds of years ago is ridiculous. Over stuff like land and resources and sovereignty and crap that barely means a thing to the average Canadian human being on the street, in the bush or out on the water. There will always be signs saying who can do this and can't do that and what, where, when and how but of course the more relevant question is why? Why is almost always the question that turns people's heads inside out trying to get their heads around all the other stuff. And the short answer is because of the fundamentally twisted view of reality that has guided and informed the authorities that have been governing our lives. I don't agree with you on this. I know that you are a proponent of your Earthling thing but I wouldn't go that far. I am however a proponent of a unified Canada and I think that most would agree with that and as such they do beleive in the sovereignty of our land and do so by respecting the laws that we have in place which were created by our history. We live in one of the best countries in the world because of the laws we have governing us make it that way. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 We have treaties that allow us to live here. Two things.... 1. No problem with the treaties. Respect them in full...but no 'grey area' interpretations. They are fairly simple documents and should be taken the way they were written. 2. I thought you told me a while back that you aren't First Nations but your quote above says 'we' have treaties implying you are. Quote
jacee Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Posted February 13, 2015 Two things.... 1. No problem with the treaties. Respect them in full...but no 'grey area' interpretations. They are fairly simple documents and should be taken the way they were written. 2. I thought you told me a while back that you aren't First Nations but your quote above says 'we' have treaties implying you are. There are two parties to a treaty.We - our governments on our behalf - signed the treaties to allow us to live on Indigenous land. They are our treaties too. . Quote
jacee Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Posted February 13, 2015 I am however a proponent of a unified Canada and I think that most would agree with that and as such they do beleive in the sovereignty of our land and do so by respecting the laws that we have in place which were created by our history. We live in one of the best countries in the world because of the laws we have governing us make it that way. "unified" ... or are you implying 'uniform'? Canada is not uniform, but can still be unified. "the laws" of Canada consist of three legal traditions: Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code and British Common Law ... not uniform but we can be unified in respecting all three traditions, laws and founding peoples. Our history and our laws continue to evolve. Aboriginal title was recently recognized legally in Canada for the first time in our history. Life goes on. . Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 "unified" ... or are you implying 'uniform'? Canada is not uniform, but can still be unified. No I am not implying uniform. I am stating unified based on the British, French and First Nation history. "the laws" of Canada consist of three legal traditions: Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code and British Common Law ... not uniform but we can be unified in respecting all three traditions, laws and founding peoples. No...the laws consist of one law....the Canadian consitution which recogize Aboriginal rights. The laws may have been derived from those past laws but we do not have three separate laws. We have Canada and that's it. Our history and our laws continue to evolve. Aboriginal title was recently recognized legally in Canada for the first time in our history. Life goes on. Somewhat aborignal title. The government can still can use the land if it determines it to be a necessity. Besides it was outside of Williams Lake. Not sure anyone will really notice. It will be really interesting to see what happens to some of the other unceded territories in populated places like Vancouver. I wonder how far the court will go with that. I'll have to remember your saying 'Life goes on' for everytime you dredge up stuff from the past. Perhaps your saying would work well for those still caught in the past? Quote
jacee Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Posted February 13, 2015 No I am not implying uniform. I am stating unified based on the British, French and First Nation history. No...the laws consist of one law....the Canadian consitution which recogize Aboriginal rights. The laws may have been derived from those past laws but we do not have three separate laws. We have Canada and that's it. Somewhat aborignal title. The government can still can use the land if it determines it to be a necessity. Besides it was outside of Williams Lake. Not sure anyone will really notice. It will be really interesting to see what happens to some of the other unceded territories in populated places like Vancouver. I wonder how far the court will go with that. Already happening. The courts are dealing with it. There are precedents, guidelines to assess the strength of claims and manner of accommodating rights.EG Aboriginal_July_2008_Sinclair_Centre-1.pdf I'll have to remember your saying 'Life goes on' for everytime you dredge up stuff from the past. Perhaps your saying would work well for those still caught in the past??Life goes on, history continues to evolve as does the law: We take the past with us. . 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.