Truth and Reconciliation - Moving Forward

[Accountability Now]

Cool. Then get rid of the Indian Act.

Read up on the White Paper and how this was already tried. Aboriginals view the Indian Act as a necessary evil in that they feel it contains the key piece to their constitutional rights as aboriginals. So even as demeaning and detrimental as it it to aboriginals, they feel they need to preserve such rights. Hence the stalemate.

[cybercoma]

So what are you saying

I'm saying the word MH is looking for is equity.

[Scott Mayers]

Since this is a vast topic, the existing thread seems to have a body of thought that says that the claims of residential school abuse are false, or overstated. Given that our PM has formally apologized that governments need to work to fix this, what is/should Canadians do collectively and individually to act ?

I don't have much hope with the way our Constitution is written as it assures a policy that favors defining us as accepting a government that can and will always be able to make laws that favor particular cultures, religions, ethnicities, etc, and by indirect cause, necessarily discriminates against those outside of these favored groups. The way we classify issues is inappropriately assigned to groups based on culture, race, or ethnicity. So we are doomed unless our Constitution takes out those things that defend our historical favor for ALL groups based on these ideals.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't have much hope with the way our Constitution is written as it assures a policy that favors defining us as accepting a government that can and will always be able to make laws that favor particular cultures, religions, ethnicities, etc, and by indirect cause, necessarily discriminates against those outside of these favored groups. The way we classify issues is inappropriately assigned to groups based on culture, race, or ethnicity. So we are doomed unless our Constitution takes out those things that defend our historical favor for ALL groups based on these ideals.

So would you prefer a constitution then that allows us to abuse those groups ...

[drummindiver]

So would you prefer a constitution then that allows us to abuse those groups ...

Treating everybody equally is not abuse.

[Scott Mayers]

So would you prefer a constitution then that allows us to abuse those groups ...

Wow, this is a good example of a "False Alternative Fallacy".

Are you saying you never heard of Americas first Amendment? In particular, the first Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. At present, our Constitution is akin to the preservation of ideals of the Confederate South who believed in preserving differences through segregationist beliefs. We need a Constitution that denies laws being made to favor religion, culture, or any historical precedence since they impose the posterity of all Canadians to abide by ancestor laws made in perpetuity.

Our Multicultural system* is set up to preserve the establishment (the inherited privileged populations) of the historical Ontario and Quebec benefactors with high disrespect towards all others. The function of creating the Constitution as it is was to assure Catholic religions (Anglican/Roman), the special privileges to the separate school system based on these, and to instill a bilingual protection to assure favor for those with such bilingual relations of English and French within government.

Edit: Forgot to add this word at the asterisk, *

Edited June 17, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[On Guard for Thee]

Treating everybody equally is not abuse.

What happened at residential schools certainly was.

[drummindiver]

What happened at residential schools certainly was.

I commented on your comment commenting on the constitution as it pertains to the constitutions eliciting powers to abuse these groups.

Which, of course, is ridiculous.

Treating everyone equally, which was the crux of the comment you commented your comment on, is certainly not abuse.

It's the way our constitution should be.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow, this is a good example of a "False Alternative Fallacy".

Are you saying you never heard of Americas first Amendment? In particular, the first Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. At present, our Constitution is akin to the preservation of ideals of the Confederate South who believed in preserving differences through segregationist beliefs. We need a Constitution that denies laws being made to favor religion, culture, or any historical precedence since they impose the posterity of all Canadians to abide by ancestor laws made in perpetuity.

Our Multicultural system* is set up to preserve the establishment (the inherited privileged populations) of the historical Ontario and Quebec benefactors with high disrespect towards all others. The function of creating the Constitution as it is was to assure Catholic religions (Anglican/Roman), the special privileges to the separate school system based on these, and to instill a bilingual protection to assure favor for those with such bilingual relations of English and French within government.

Edit: Forgot to add this word at the asterisk, *

Not sure I agree with most of that, but what does it have to do with residential schools and the TRC...

[Scott Mayers]

Not sure I agree with most of that, but what does it have to do with residential schools and the TRC...

Michael opened this with the question of how we could or should move forward with this considering our politicians have 'accepted' the supposed accusations of residential school attendees through this report, etc. I responded that this cannot be resolved (especially to those of us who disagree with the way it has been handled) unless we redress the Constitution first and foremost. Our Constitution is NOT devised to favor individuals nor the whole, but favors particular groups for perpetuity based on an arrogant presupposition of favorable ancestral inheritances, cultures, and religions by those who belong to these groups. To me and many others, this is highly discriminatory.

Until this gets addressed, the only 'resolution' will favor those groups already privileged and who favor the status quo, not the ones who disagree.

[Michael Hardner]

I responded that this cannot be resolved (especially to those of us who disagree with the way it has been handled) unless we redress the Constitution first and foremost.

Until this gets addressed, the only 'resolution' will favor those groups already privileged and who favor the status quo, not the ones who disagree.

So, you're advocating for an effective political stalemate and no change.

What about solutions that have a realistic chance at being tried ?

[On Guard for Thee]

Michael opened this with the question of how we could or should move forward with this considering our politicians have 'accepted' the supposed accusations of residential school attendees through this report, etc. I responded that this cannot be resolved (especially to those of us who disagree with the way it has been handled) unless we redress the Constitution first and foremost. Our Constitution is NOT devised to favor individuals nor the whole, but favors particular groups for perpetuity based on an arrogant presupposition of favorable ancestral inheritances, cultures, and religions by those who belong to these groups. To me and many others, this is highly discriminatory.

Until this gets addressed, the only 'resolution' will favor those groups already privileged and who favor the status quo, not the ones who disagree.

I dont think we have to change the constitution to resolve illegal activities that were carried out, just because the activities were against a certain group.

[Scott Mayers]

So, you're advocating for an effective political stalemate and no change.

What about solutions that have a realistic chance at being tried ?

Sure, things can be done. But for all possibilities, none can ever do me or others like me any better or worse politically and we have no power other than to favor one unfavorable position over other as equally unfavorable positions.

[i'm defining "those like me" as anyone who doesn't belong to any fixed historically inherent group, those of us who are Earthlings but don't have inherent ownership of any Earth or favored culture, religion, or ethnicity (many of us, likely most, are not PURE breed races (et al) with strict family traditions), and who assume the individual and the whole as significant qualifiers for constitutional preservation, not contingent cults.]

[bush_cheney2004]

....[i'm defining "those like me" as anyone who doesn't belong to any fixed historically inherent group, those of us who are Earthlings but don't have inherent ownership of any Earth or favored culture, religion, or ethnicity (many of us, likely most, are not PURE breed races (et al) with strict family traditions), and who assume the individual and the whole as significant qualifiers for constitutional preservation, not contingent cults.]

This is an interesting observation given the historical nature of the crown/reigning monarch's role in creating and perpetuating the system for "enfranchisement" and segregation of "aboriginals" in Canada. Remnants of that presumed ownership and favored superiority continue to this day.

[Michael Hardner]

But for all possibilities, none can ever do me or others like me any better or worse politically and we have no power other than to favor one unfavorable position over other as equally unfavorable positions.

Ok, these positions being unfavourable because, treating the FN people differently, they are non-starters for you ? Is that what you mean ?

[Scott Mayers]

Ok, these positions being unfavourable because, treating the FN people differently, they are non-starters for you ? Is that what you mean ?

Treating the FN people distinctly as a separate nation and people apart from the population as if they are a different species is what I don't approve of. I am as purely a part of this land being born here as someone who had some genetic ancestor that just happened to have lived on this land at some earlier century. We are all a part of this Earth.

We treat the subject, "poverty", as a property of being "First Nations"; In an opposite but implied way, we presume (& thus treat) the subject, "wealth", as a property of belonging intrinsically to European ancestry, and more concisely as is often the case, "white males".

Not all poor people are FN; not all FN are poor. Not all wealthy are Old World Caucasians; Not all Old World Caucasians are wealthy.

This is the bad classification scheme that is bugging me here. Serving cultures hides the actual causes and only perpetuates more discrimination, prejudice, and imbalances between people.

[jacee]

We are all part of this land of Canada, some of us in different ways, with some different histories, some different rules/laws/treaties/policies:

Indigenous Peoples made treaties with the French and together created the Metis.

They made treaties with the British,then the British made agreements with the French (eg, the Quebec Act preserving French language, culture and laws - French Civil Code).

Tens of thousands of United Empire Loyalists arrived when the U.S. forms, Jay Treaty between the U.S. and Britain.

Quebec was divided into Upper Canada (Ontario, English) and Lower Canada (Quebec, French.

Canada assumed responsibility for all treaties and agreements with Indigenous Peoples and Quebecois at Confederation in 1867.

Territories have different agreements than provinces.

Provinces, joined at different times with different agreements. Nunavut formed via a successful Indigenous land claim.

Canada never has been, never will be as lockstep 'same everywhere' as some people would prefer.

Equal doesn't mean majority culture rules and is the only one respected.

Equal doesn't always mean "same".

It is that complexity of Canada that affords equal rights to everyone by respecting language, cultural religious and political rights of three founding peoples and a variety of provinces and territories each with a distinct character.

And in my experience, those who latch onto 'sameness' are using it as a cover for majority dominance.

Whereas Canada has a culture of protecting and respecting minority rights.

So my conclusion about people who persistently demand 'sameness' is that they don't understand Canada very well, and don't respect Canadian culture ... and laws.

There's really nothing to say to such impossible and undesirable demands except ...

That's the law.

Love it or leave it!

Edited June 22, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

The desire for change actually grows all the time. There won't be much loving it and leaving it in the near future.

[drummindiver]

"And in my experience, those who latch onto 'sameness' are using it as a cover for majority dominance."

I believe that is called democracy.

Have you read the June 22/2015 Macleans special feature titled Indigenous Development,. It chronicles several success stories, including how a reserve, Penticton Indian Band, used an economic development plan to reduce unemployment from 60% to 20% and helped infrastructure, including building a new health centre and upgrading their school. They had a plan and followed it. There is no reason many other FNs cannot follow suit.

[cybercoma]

"And in my experience, those who latch onto 'sameness' are using it as a cover for majority dominance."

I believe that is called democracy.

We don't have pure nor direct democracy for a reason. Majority dominance is not a virtue.

[drummindiver]

We don't have pure nor direct democracy for a reason. Majority dominance is not a virtue.

So what is democracy if not majority dominance? And majority dominance is not a great term, btw.

We live in a democracy, which, literally states, "a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges".

I don't want "sameness'.

I want equal rights though.

democracy

[dih-mok-ruh-see]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural democracies.

1.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.

a state having such a form of government:

The United States and Canada are democracies.

3.

a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4.

political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5.

the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

[cybercoma]

We have a system of democracy that is tempered by a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our democratically elected officials cannot make legislation that violates the rights of minorities, as codified in the Constitution. That's why we do not have a "pure" democracy and that's how we protect minority rights against a "tyranny of the majority" or "majority dominance" or whatever you want to call it. Majority absolute rule is not a virtue and can lead to grossly inhumane situations and human atrocities. Oh and that's not even getting into the fact that our country is a monarchy. So supreme power is with the Crown, not the people.

Edited June 22, 2015 by cybercoma

[drummindiver]

Treating people equally is not violating their rights.

Democracy is majority rule, as it should be.

I'm sure there have been inhumane situations under democracies, but far, far less than any other form of government.

"Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us." JFK

[cybercoma]

Treating people equally is not violating their rights.

Treating people "equally" can violate people's rights when equal treatment would create serious disadvantages for specific groups of people. White people have the benefit of not facing disadvantages over their names on a resume or their skin colour when they walk into an interview. When an employer has two equally skilled people and one's resume shows they recently moved to the country and have a hard to pronounce name and the other resume shows the person has lived here all their life and has an anglo-saxon name, they pick the latter far more often than not and for no other reason than the latter is more likely to look and talk like the employer. The opportunities are not equal and that's why they need to be addressed with affirmative action laws.

[Smallc]

If people are treated equal by everyone, it shouldn't be possible for that to result in disadvantage.