BC First Nations lose social funding?

[jacee]

You are taking that position but doing nothing to substantiate it. As per my request above:

Step up and prove that 'International Law' recongnizes the First Nations as nations similar to Canada, the US, England or other nations that are recognized as such.

That's not my position nor the truth.

As I have repeatedly said:

Indigenous nations of people exist within the state of Canada (and other states of the world).

And I have compared it to the Quebecois nation of people within Canada.

And you may recall me saying on other occasions that we have three founding peoples: Indigenous, French and English, and three legal traditions: Aboriginal law, French Civil code and English Common law.

That's the reality of Canada.

Can you handle that complexity?

.

Edited May 26, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

That's not my position nor the truth.

As I have repeatedly said:

Indigenous nations of people exist within the state of Canada (and other states of the world).

And I have compared it to the Quebecois nation of people within Canada.

And you may recall me saying on other occasions that we have three founding peoples: Indigenous, French and English, and three legal traditions: Aboriginal law, French Civil code and English Common law.

That's the reality of Canada.

Can you handle that complexity?

.

There is no complexity. Three nations started this country. The French backed out in 1763 and no longer had rights to Canada. The Aboriginals signed treaties and ceded their rights to the English. Our constitution is based on the Royal Proclamation and British Common Law which gives Natives rights but is certainly not based on Native laws. In the end Canada was formed as one nation with all (including the natives) being subjects of to the Queen of England.

Yet today we still have First Nations who think they are their own country (see Iroquois lacrosse team) and that Canada should be speaking 'nation to nation'. At most they are municipal districts within the nation of Canada...not separate nations unto themselves. You don't see the Province of Ontario or the City of Calgary asking for 'nation to nation' discussions with Canada. Surely the international community doesn't view them as such and you have yet to show proof they do.

As asked, please step forward and provide substance to your opinion that the international community sees them as nations.

[jacee]

Well if you are wrong, you'll be eternally frustrated, and that's your choice.

French Civil code is the law in Quebec.

Aboriginal law is the law everywhere.

British Common law national and provincial except Quebec.

It is complex.

As asked, please step forward and provide substance to your opinion that the international community sees them as nations.

We call them First NATIONS.

They are recognized as distinct peoples within states.

Don't confuse nations of distinct peoples with nation states.

You can read the UN Declaration here:

http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/61/295

Edited May 26, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Well if you are wrong, you'll be eternally frustrated, and that's your choice.

I don't get frustrated with things that are historical facts especially when these facts are still true today. Maybe you do?

French Civil code is the law in Quebec.

Aboriginal law is the law everywhere.

British Common law national and provincial except Quebec.

Close...except the part about Aboriginal law everywhere. Here...this may help you:

The Canadian legal system has its foundation in the English common law system with some influence from Scots Law, inherited from being a former colony of the United Kingdom and later a Commonwealth Realm member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The legal system is bi-jurisdictional, as the responsibilities of public (includes criminal) and private law are separated and exercised exclusively by Parliament and the provinces respectively. Quebec, however, still retains a civil system for issues of private law (as this domain falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces). Both legal systems are subject to the Constitution of Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Canada

Nowhere in there does it talk about Aboriginal law as foundation. Even the French Civil law is subject to the Constitution of Canada which again is British.

Canada's constitution is its supreme law, and any law passed by any federal, provincial, or territorial government that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid

Now...just because the law talks about how to deal with Aboriginals that does not make them 'founding' contributors to the law. If you think that is the case then I guess murderers and thieves would be founding contributors too because the British laws talk about dealing with them too.

It is complex.

Only for you it seems.

We call them First NATIONS.

"WE" didn't call them that. "THEY" came up with it on their own as they didn't like being called Indians. Yet they still abide by the Indian Act and are still legally noted as Status or Non-Status Indians. So I guess they can call themselves what ever they want but they are still subjects to the Crown.

They are recognized as distinct peoples within states.

Don't confuse nations of distinct peoples with nation states.

Great deflection however I haven't. My point from the start is that these group of people who call themselves First Nations have taken that title too seriously and consider themselves to be equals to Canada as a nation state. They want to talk 'nation to nation'. Are you now suggesting that these FNs are really staying "nation of distinct people (FN) to nation state (Canada)? I don't think so and I'm sure neither do you. Their actions have clearly shown that they don't niew themselves as just a nation of distinct people especially with the example of the Iroquois passports.

You can read the UN Declaration here:

http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/61/295

You mean that declaration that was originally only signed by countries with no existing Aboriginal issues thus leaving out Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand. This same declaration which was agreed to in recent times once these countries discovered that this declaration is non-binding. You do know what non-binding means....right? Its not a law. So much for your International LAW!!!! Here...have a read:

In November 2010, Canada announced it would officially support the UNDRIP. While this move was celebrated by many as a positive step forward, the continued use of qualifiers in official speeches have left many skeptical of Canada’s true commitment. Much like New Zealand’s official statement of endorsement, the Canadian government suggests that existing policy toward Indigenous peoples is satisfactory, and that its endorsement of the UNDRIP will not change Canadian laws:

How the official endorsement of the UNDRIP will change Indigenous rights on the ground in Canada remains to be seen.

So please....show me the binding international law that accepts First Nations as nations.

[jacee]

They are not 'a' nation. There are many nations of Indigenous peoples.

I am simply pointing out that Indigenous nations - the government calls them First Nations - of people exist WITHIN the state of Canada.

I really don't know what you're on about.

.

Edited May 26, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

They are not 'a' nation. There are many nations of Indigenous peoples.

None of which are recognized as nation states even though they want to think they are.

I am simply pointing out that Indigenous nations - the government calls them First Nations - of people exist WITHIN the state of Canada.

The Government calls them that because they asked to be called that. The Government would call them Teletubbies if they asked them to.

As far as you simply pointing this out, perhaps next time you should actually understand what you are trying to point out. The entire context of the conversation was about First Nations thinking they are their own nation and you know that I was talking about a nation state yet you thought you could discredit my comment by deflecting to another definition of nation. I've debated with you enough to know i have you beat when you deflect like that. Kind of like when we were talking about Canadian Natives and you posted a supporting article about Mayans.

The entire point of this is that First Nations are groups of people within Canada that are entitled to certain benefits due to the treaties they made. If they made no treaties then they get the advantage of strong arming the government as we have seen in BC however they do not get the benefit of the treaties. Very simple. The only reason they get these benefits is because they are a part of Canada...not separate from it. If they chose to leave then so would the benefits.

[jacee]

The topic is about eligibility for welfare and disability benefits in Canada - the feds are apparently cutting all BC aboriginal people off those benefits.

If true, I find that entirely egregious.

You said they should be cut off because they are not Canadians.

You have difficulty with the concept of nations of people (First Nations) within Canada, confusing that with nation states (Canada).

To attempt to clarify ... again: Indigenous Peoples - First Nations - are Canadian citizens with full rights as such, unlike pre-1970's when they had to give up Aboriginal identity to assume Canadian citizenship.

If indeed the feds are trying to cut off social assistance, a dodgy move ... it's just another control freak hissy-fit from Stephen Harper ... pissed about pipeline opposition in BC no doubt. :/

I am waiting for more news, but surprisingly there is none.

.

Edited May 28, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

The topic is about eligibility for welfare and disability benefits in Canada - the feds are apparently cutting all BC aboriginal people off those benefits.

If true, I find that entirely egregious.

I think its more like restructuring than cutting off but yes at this point the funding has been pulled.

You said they should be cut off because they are not Canadians.

No. My point is that 'they' claim they aren't Canadian. They are the ones that wish to deal on a 'nation to nation' level with Canada. Just look at the Manifesto from Idle No More and tell me they view themselves as Canadians. I will be the first to say that not all natives think this way but it certainly is a noticeable amount that do.

I have no problems with the fact that they are Canadian but you can't play both sides of the fence which is tactic common when it comes to negotiations.

You have difficulty with the concept of nations of people (First Nations) within Canada, confusing that with nation states (Canada).

LMFAO....I have done no such thing. I have shown direct examples of how they claim to be a nation state and that is the discussion being had. You conflated the idea and tried to deflect to them being a nation of people. You literally had no constructive point to make so you decided to deflect.

Again...why do they keep asking to talk 'nation to nation' if they aren't thinking about equal nation states? Please answer the question with no deflection.

To attempt to clarify ... again: Indigenous Peoples - First Nations - are Canadian citizens with full rights as such, unlike pre-1970's when they had to give up Aboriginal identity to assume Canadian citizenship.

Full rights come from contributing to the system....not just taking. A lot of the things that Canadians get from the government are because we have paid municipal, provincial and federal taxes which a native living on a reserve has not done. So no....they are not entitled to the same rights. If you are a status Indian and choose to to live on the reserve then you live under the Indian act. At that point you do not have the right to own property. Also, in turn for accepting the small benefits of the treaties you lose out on the benefits of what other Canadians get by paying taxes.

Of course your comment about giving up Aboriginal identity is just not true. They continue to have that identity to this day and show it more than any other group in Canada.

If indeed the feds are trying to cut off social assistance, a dodgy move ... it's just another control freak hissy-fit from Stephen Harper ... pissed about pipeline opposition in BC no doubt. :/

I am waiting for more news, but surprisingly there is none.

Well...it certainly isn't a story that is being covered by a lot of the main stream media. I'm sure if there was more backing to it that the CBC would be all over it based on their historical coverage. I think the case is that its a matter of restructuring but it could turn out to be simply cutting them off. Is it dodgy....no. Its a part of the negotiation. Again, why should Canada offer anything more than what is offered in the treaties? With that said, I think there are only two treaties in BC and the rest like to use their non-treaty status to strong arm the Government and business as seen in the LNG deal.

I have probably said it five times now....you can't play both sides of the fence. If you want to play the Aboriginal card as a non-treaty native then why should the Government give you benefits that only result from Treaties? Please answer that one.

If there is no more news on this then I would suspect it wasn't much of a story to begin with.

[Accountability Now]

Perhaps the move by Harper is working? It looks like there is a backlash within the BC First Nations to now accept the LNG deal

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-chief-creates-alliance-for-first-nations-lng-supporters/article24634273/

A group of First Nations communities that supports a liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia will meet on Wednesday in an effort to forge a pro-development alliance.

Aboriginal leaders who have signed up for benefit-sharing agreements for their communities are facing a strong backlash from other First Nations leaders – often within their own communities.

[Je suis Omar]

Perhaps the move by Harper is working? It looks like there is a backlash within the BC First Nations to now accept the LNG deal

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-chief-creates-alliance-for-first-nations-lng-supporters/article24634273/

I think that that is a huge assumption, on a scale like, say, Edmonton to Kitimat. The article you provided doesn't seem to support your contention at all. Edited May 30, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Accountability Now]

I think that that is a huge assumption, on a scale like, say, Edmonton to Kitimat. The article you provided doesn't seem to support your contention at all.

Hmmmm....I wonder why this article says nothing about Edmonton? Perhaps it's because the pipeline in LNG route are only within BC and have nothing to do with Edmonton. Clearly you are confusing the TransCanada Coastal Gaslink pipeline being discussed in this article with Enbridges crude oil Northern Gateway pipeline. The former brings LNG from NE BC to Kitimat whereas the latter brings crude from Edmonton to Kitimat.

[Je suis Omar]

Hmmmm....I wonder why this article says nothing about Edmonton? Perhaps it's because the pipeline in LNG route are only within BC and have nothing to do with Edmonton. Clearly you are confusing the TransCanada Coastal Gaslink pipeline being discussed in this article with Enbridges crude oil Northern Gateway pipeline. The former brings LNG from NE BC to Kitimat whereas the latter brings crude from Edmonton to Kitimat.

I wasn't referring to any pipeline at all. The reference Edmonton to Kitimat only referred to your gigantic assumption. It could just as easily have been Winnipeg to Kitimat or Montreal to Kitimat.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Accountability Now]

The reference Edmonton to Kitimat only referred to your gigantic assumption. It could just as easily have been Winnipeg to Kitimat or Montreal to Kitimat.

Why is my assumption that BC natives may be reconsidering talks about a BC pipeline that will generate billions of dollars for BC First Nations especially after the Feds pulled funding for said BC First Nations? Notice how many times BC was used and not Edmonton or Winnipeg?

It's clear there are two sides to the First Nation decision on the LNG pipeline and my only assumption is that the loss in social funding may add fuel to that fire and cause some of those sitting on the fence to swing to the pro-LNG side. Not a large assumption by any stretch

[eyeball]

Full rights come from contributing to the system....not just taking.

Fuller right's come from taking the system and soon enough we'll be fighting over the land the way nations in other lands fight over theirs in the same struggle of everyone against everyone.

[Accountability Now]

Fuller right's come from taking the system and soon enough we'll be fighting over the land the way nations in other lands fight over theirs in the same struggle of everyone against everyone.

Yes yes....we're all earthlings. I get it

[eyeball]

How'd you finally figure it out?

[Accountability Now]

How'd you finally figure it out?

Oops....did I forget to put the sarcasm emoticon in there? My bad

[eyeball]

I'm guessing you're not used to seeing people making a good living for themselves utterly and completely outside the system where you live - operating day after day, fishing year after year with no visible form of licence, landing fish without any visible form of validation or enumerating. There's zero reason to believe any taxes or fees are being paid.

I've seen the future and it's a marvel of complete self-governance. I don't think you get it at all actually.

[jacee]

Why is my assumption that BC natives may be reconsidering talks about a BC pipeline that will generate billions of dollars for BC First Nations especially after the Feds pulled funding for said BC First Nations? Notice how many times BC was used and not Edmonton or Winnipeg?

It's clear there are two sides to the First Nation decision on the LNG pipeline and my only assumption is that the loss in social funding may add fuel to that fire and cause some of those sitting on the fence to swing to the pro-LNG side. Not a large assumption by any stretch

So you think removing social assistance to children, single Mom's and disabled people is Harper's way of coercing Indigenous communities into accepting LNG pipelines through their territories?

If so, he's taking a page from Sir John A ' s playbook: starving them into submission, forcing them to sign agreements ... all genocidal practices of course.

And not new for Harper: He has threatened and withheld funding repeatedly to try to 'keep them in line'.

.

Edited May 30, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

I've seen the future and it's a marvel of complete self-governance.

I'm guessing you've never seen anything outside of BC never mind the future!

[Accountability Now]

So you think removing social assistance to children, single Mom's and disabled people is Harper's way of coercing Indigenous communities into accepting LNG pipelines through their territories?

If so, he's taking a page from Sir John A ' s playbook: starving them into submission, forcing them to sign agreements ... all genocidal practices of course.

.

Genocide??? Lmfao. Is that your go to line?

As I've already shown you three times. Treaties provide natives those benefits. No treaty, no benefits. Of course no treaties also mean they get to strong arm the government on development.

[eyeball]

I'm guessing you've never seen anything outside of BC never mind the future!

There's nothing outside BC that compares to what's happening here. I think once the word out and you start setting the same thing you'll be fit to be tied.

You'll probably be calling for a war and burying the tomahawk once and for all.

[Accountability Now]

There's nothing outside BC that compares to what's happening here. I think once the word out and you start setting the same thing you'll be fit to be tied.

You'll probably be calling for a war and burying the tomahawk once and for all.

Sounds like a fun ride. Look me up when you get back to reality land.

[jacee]

Genocide??? Lmfao. Is that your go to line?

As I've already shown you three times. Treaties provide natives those benefits. No treaty, no benefits. Of course no treaties also mean they get to strong arm the government on development.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032288/1100100032289

1960 - Registered Indians are granted the right to vote federal elections. Prior to 1960, First Nations people were required to give up their Indian status to be considered Canadian citizens under the law.

They are entitled to the same benefits as other Canadians.

.

[Accountability Now]

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032288/1100100032289

1960 - Registered Indians are granted the right to vote federal elections. Prior to 1960, First Nations people were required to give up their Indian status to be considered Canadian citizens under the law.

They are entitled to the same benefits as other Canadians.

.

You don't understand your own link. Prior to 1960 they had to become a Canadian citizen to vote. Now they don't. They can remain a registered Indian and still vote....meaning they don't have to become a Canadian citizen. With that said, giving someone the right to vote does not mean they have all the same rights. By law they are still to adhere to the Indian Act. Edited May 30, 2015 by Accountability Now