Why should "Metis" get any special treatment?

[Argus]

I'm confused about this latest drunken idiocy on the part of the courts. More than six hundred thousand descendants of mixed race couplings are suddenly going to be described as natives and be able to negotiate for land claims, tax exemptions and special status? Why? From what I understand these 'indigenous' people go all the way back to uh... the nineteenth century. Yes, that's right, that far back! It was mostly native women who 'married' white fur trappers and the like. So how do they qualify as some unique people who should be treated like natives? Are there any treaties? No, of course not. And what sort of land claims could they have given they were half white and their 'communities' mostly developed alongside an existing Canadian culture?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-metis-a-roadmap-to-nowhere/article29636204/

[?Impact]

Are there any treaties? No, of course not.

I am not sure it is as black and white as you paint it. Are you familiar with Métis Scrip? Instead of collective treaties, the Métis were dealt with on a one-on-one basis with the government trying to buy off their aboriginal land claims with a few dollars. There is a lot of controversy over that, very much a take it or leave it proposition. I'm not taking a position as to what is right, or the long term issues around assimilation of cultures, just pointing out the history is not simple.

[Accountability Now]

I'm confused about this latest drunken idiocy on the part of the courts.

This is a win for lawyers. All this judgement says is that Canada has to negotiate with Metis however there are no treaties or Indian Act to resort back to which state to what level. Each case will be examines on a case by case approach meaning lawyers make out like bandits.

To prove your point about this being idiocy....I am a white guy who has 1/64th native blood, however I can track my ancestors back to Metis therefore I qualify for my Metis card. If in fact, they get the same benefits then I won't have to worry about paying for my kids school. And I have NOTHING to do with Native culture. But hey....if the Supreme Court wants to make these rules, then who am I too argue!! Unbelievable!!

[waldo]

I'm confused about this latest drunken idiocy on the part of the courts.

your confusion may start with a factual testament and understanding of just who fits within that SCOC ruling as reflects upon current categorization numbers for "Metis and non-status Indian"... I read current numbers as 600,000 total, 200,000 Metis and 400,000 non-status Indian: A primer on who qualifies as a Metis or non-status Indian

perhaps the SCOC ruling may further assist your confusion:

.

[Peter F]

...To prove your point about this being idiocy....I am a white guy who has 1/64th native blood, however I can track my ancestors back to Metis therefore I qualify for my Metis card. If in fact, they get the same benefits then I won't have to worry about paying for my kids school. And I have NOTHING to do with Native culture. But hey....if the Supreme Court wants to make these rules, then who am I too argue!! Unbelievable!!

Whats idiotic about that? The SCC ruling - as kindly linked by Waldo above - says that if you fit the criteria you get the benefits. Is that not sensible? Is that not rational?

see Para 48 of the decision.

I suspect your hypothetical claim would fail at the first criteria "self-identification as Metis" and most certainly fail the second also "an ancestral connection to a historical Metis community".

But maybe not - I'm no lawyer - nor do I have anything beyond you're declaration that to consider yourself a metis is ridiculous.

You're entitled to your entitlements! Go get em.

[Argus]

I am not sure it is as black and white as you paint it. Are you familiar with Métis Scrip? Instead of collective treaties, the Métis were dealt with on a one-on-one basis with the government trying to buy off their aboriginal land claims with a few dollars. There is a lot of controversy over that, very much a take it or leave it proposition. I'm not taking a position as to what is right, or the long term issues around assimilation of cultures, just pointing out the history is not simple.

What land claims? Tribes make land claims. What the Metis were was a collection of people at trading posts and such, bound together by nothing more than the fact they were all fur traders and their indian girlfriends/wives.

[Peter F]

What land claims? Tribes make land claims. What the Metis were was a collection of people at trading posts and such, bound together by nothing more than the fact they were all fur traders and their indian girlfriends/wives.

...and, as the SCC decision pointed out, shipped of to residential schools whenever the Government flunkies waved the Indian Act and claimed authority over metis. Chickens often come home to roost and often ones ass gets bitten. The past cannot be ignored for your convenience.

[BubberMiley]

What land claims? Tribes make land claims. What the Metis were was a collection of people at trading posts and such, bound together by nothing more than the fact they were all fur traders and their indian girlfriends/wives.

That's not true. The Metis were settled in Manitoba for years with homes they built and land they farmed. Then Ontarians came in and forcibly removed it, but offered them Scrip that they later reneged on. I recommend Chester Brown's Louis Riel graphic novel if you want to find out the actual history of the area before commenting further.

[nerve]

Argus I would suspect you don't know the history of the Metis if you don't understand that the Metis are the decendents of various tribal groups on the plains.

French traders, and some English had sex with various tribal groups which had matrilineal lines of descent. Their children in turn had sex with more people both native and non. They maintained a political organization and heritage which traces their roots being associated with the original tribal groups that inhabited Canada before the English annexed it.

Annexed territories are occupied territories and by international law, the original people who inhabited the land are the rightful owners.

In order to lease rights from the rightful owners the crown entered into treaties, that delegate benefits for usage of the land.

Since genocide and occupation are seen as not very nice and not good behavi'our of government in the modern era, benefits need to be provided to the rightful owners of the land.

In Canada this issue was most pronounced when the Metis resisted the annexing of the Praries, most notably under Louis Riel.

You seem really ignorant that the descendants of the rightful owners of the land are deserving of benefits for incentives gained by occupiers of the prairies.

You must remember that the land that is Canada was invaded and occupied, and that agreements were made for use of territories often in treaties signed under duress. The descendents of the people who inhabited Canada in fact have the only moral claim to Canada's territories.

The outright horrible human rights atrocities that occurred to rape the land from first nations people should not be ignored.

These people are the descendents of tribal peoples of this continent, recognize that.

Does this explain it to you a bit why they deserve treaty rights and benefits?'

I am guessing maybe you are just some ignorant indian hating person who doesn't respect human rights and you are national socialist who thinks that Canada owes nothing to native groups because hell I have the deed to my house I bought it fair and square. Well you don't own your house it is leased under fee simple most likely, much like Canada doesn't own the land, it has a treaty that provides them land as long as they provide benefits to people. If they don't at law they have no rights to the land you call Canada.

You are living in an illusion thinking you are Canadian and you were born to own the land of Canada. Check your history, you are likely a descendant of a human rights abuser who stole someone elses land.

People are waking up to this fact that the events of the past must be recognized and must seek to correct the wrongs of the past.

Edited April 16, 2016 by nerve

[eyeball]

Why should "Metis" get any special treatment?

Notice the individual at the top of the list that was sued in the SCC, Her Majesty the Queen? The problem is that the people in charge of the institutions that pieced this miscombobulated country together cocked it all up. Jurisprudence is slowly but surely rectifying things like freedoms and rights and they have to be re-established in their proper order is all.

Everyone's turn will come.

[cybercoma]

That's not true. The Metis were settled in Manitoba for years with homes they built and land they farmed. Then Ontarians came in and forcibly removed it, but offered them Scrip that they later reneged on. I recommend Chester Brown's Louis Riel graphic novel if you want to find out the actual history of the area before commenting further.

Surprisingly excellent read. One of the most balanced accounts of Louis Riel that I've ever read.

[bill_barilko]

OK I have the book on hold @ VPL-it's been a while since I read anything about Riel one of his descendants is a friend of mine so I should keep up.

[Accountability Now]

Whats idiotic about that? The SCC ruling - as kindly linked by Waldo above - says that if you fit the criteria you get the benefits. Is that not sensible? Is that not rational?

see Para 48 of the decision.

What's not sensible is that I am 1/64th Metis and I still qualify. So what about the 63/64ths of me that is 'White' and has ancestors who did all these 'wrong doings'. Or what about the fact that I live in Canada and benefit from all these so called advantages that were brought forth due to the Metis scrip. At what point is someone just Canadian???

I suspect your hypothetical claim would fail at the first criteria "self-identification as Metis"

When I go into the Metis office, I write a declaration that I am Metis and I self identify as Metis from that point on. Its not hard.

and most certainly fail the second also "an ancestral connection to a historical Metis community".

Again you would be wrong. My brother already has his card and so do my cousins who are from the same lineage. Proving my ancestral connection is the least of my problems when it comes to this. Not to mention, the Metis community wants to expand....its not some secret club. Obviously they want you to be proud of your heritage and promote it but its just a matter of one saying so.

But maybe not - I'm no lawyer - nor do I have anything beyond you're declaration that to consider yourself a metis is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?? Is it because you think anyone with a tiny piece of native heritage should be beating a drum and calling down the Canadian government at all times? Or is it just possible.....that a guy from Alberta with ancestral base in Saskatchewan where a vast majority of Metis are from, would/could actually have an ancestral tie to the Metis?

You act like I'm from China and that I'm claiming Louis Riel was my dad!

You're entitled to your entitlements! Go get em.

Do you still not see the idiocy in all of this? Why should I who has 63/64ths Canadian blood get compensated to the same level as those who are full blood First Nations or even true Metis? How many other Metis in this equation are the same as me? I know at least 5 in my immediate family.

Seriously....at what point are we just Canadian? That to me is the ironic thing. They keep saying it was Canada versus the Metis/FN and make it out like Canada prospered/won. That may be the case but here's the kicker....anyone in this country can be on the winning Canadian side. I find the only losers in this equation are those that bury their heads in the sand and continue to believe there are two sides. Many aboriginals have gone on to live good lives and have chosen to be part of Canada. Many others stay on the reserves and choose to stay locked up in bondage both physically and mentally. These so called 'native entitlements' are keeping aboriginals in poverty.

[Argus]

That's not true. The Metis were settled in Manitoba for years with homes they built and land they farmed.

They were settlers, not natives. They even called themselves settlers. Maybe they got screwed over. So what? The Chinese got screwed over, too. So did the Ukrainians and Irish immigrants. A lot of people got screwed over back then. That doesn't make them aborigines. And it shouldn't entitle their descendants to special treatment.

[Argus]

Argus I would suspect you don't know the history of the Metis if you don't understand that the Metis are the decendents of various tribal groups on the plains.

I don't give a damn who they're descended from. I'm against race based laws and entitlements.

French traders, and some English had sex with various tribal groups which had matrilineal lines of descent. Their children in turn had sex with more people both native and non.

Which makes them... uh, nothing special.

They maintained a political organization and heritage which traces their roots being associated with the original tribal groups

Quite a few Canadians trace their heritage to countries they're no longer citizens of. So?

Annexed territories are occupied territories and by international law, the original people who inhabited the land are the rightful owners.

That's utter drivel. Every piece of land on the planet was 'annexed' or conquered at some point or other by this or that tribe, nation, or warlord. The history of the world is the history of migrations of people, including into North America, and struggles between those peoples for control of territory. Canada is no different except in the extreme kindness of its ultimate conquerors towards those already there.

In order to lease rights from the rightful owners the crown entered into treaties, that delegate benefits for usage of the land.

The metis are not original owners of anything.

You seem really ignorant that the descendants of the rightful owners of the land are deserving of benefits for incentives gained by occupiers of the prairies.

No, I'm simply practical and realistic. Neither the metis, nor, ultimately, the 'natives' were in any way 'owners' of the land. On this planet, you controlled what land you had the force of arms to control. That too is the history of the world. When someone stronger comes, you lose territory, sometimes all of it. All over the world are the remains of nations which were conquered by others. And nobody is paying their descendants reparations except us. That's because in most cases they were slaughtered or completely incorporated into the new conquering state, with no permission or ability to carry on their old cultures and languages.

The outright horrible human rights atrocities that occurred to rape the land from first nations people should not be ignored.

Why? They did worse when they fought and slaughtered each other. And look how Genghis Khan swept across Asia. Look at the Muslim conquests of India and the holy land. Hundreds of millions put to the sword. Heads piled high outside gutted towns and cities. Are you entirely ignorant of the world which existed back then? Look at how Arab slave traders slaughtered black Africans.

and you are national socialist who thinks that Canada owes nothing to native groups because hell I have the deed to my house I bought it fair and square. Well you don't own your house it is leased under fee simple most likely, much like Canada doesn't own the land, it has a treaty that provides them land as long as they provide benefits to people. If they don't at law they have no rights to the land you call Canada.

We have the ultimate ownership, the ownership of numbers, power and strength to hold and control the land we live on.

You are living in an illusion thinking you are Canadian and you were born to own the land of Canada. Check your history, you are likely a descendant of a human rights abuser who stole someone elses land.

Drivel. We took the land because we could. We hold it because we can. We make the rules because it's our land now. The descendants of the original natives would be a hundred times better off if they moved off their reservations and simply integrated with our far more advanced, developed and progressive society.

People are waking up to this fact that the events of the past must be recognized and must seek to correct the wrongs of the past.

What people? The people I know are thinking it's high time the descendents of the original natives moved into cities and got jobs instead of living their miserable non-lives in the boonies complaining about the world. Edited April 16, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

I have to say the best thing about this ruling is how much it gets up right wingers noses.

[overthere]

your confusion may start with a factual testament and understanding of just who fits within that SCOC ruling as reflects upon current categorization numbers for "Metis and non-status Indian"... I read current numbers as 600,000 total, 200,000 Metis and 400,000 non-status Indian: A primer on who qualifies as a Metis or non-status Indian

perhaps the SCOC ruling may further assist your confusion:

.

Your confusion likely comes from a lack of knowledge of how it really works.

This is what is pertinent: "According to the Metis National Council website, "Metis" means a person who self-identifies as Metis, is distinct from other Aboriginal Peoples, is of historic Metis Nation ancestry and who is accepted by the Metis Nation."

The only part that really natters is the final one. Metis organizations have for many years defined who they pemit into their organization, and this will come sharply into focus now with this SC ruling. The organizations overall have had some govt funding, their influence can only be enhanced. They can expect a lot of interest in people joining/seeking recognition, which is only nirmal since there is or could be a grater pie to be divided. But.... will the organizations seek to diminish the size of each slice? A major internal fight looms.

A group that is in a good position are the Metis Settlements of Alberta. They already have land and money granted by the provincial government. It would not be surpising to see Metis groups elsewhere looking for the same sort of arrangement.

[Big Guy]

I suspect that when the money starts rolling in that the Metis Nation will become a lot larger:

Aboriginal ancestry 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/16, or 1/32, or 1/64, or 1/128, or 1/256, or 1/512, or 1/1024 or ...

What about adoptions?

I believe that this is going to require a whole review of the relationship and responsibility of the current government and all aboriginals and Metis. I also believe that this is going to undermine aboriginal claims and is not good news for the aboriginal community.

[overthere]

I suspect that when the money starts rolling in that the Metis Nation will become a lot larger:

Aboriginal ancestry 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/16, or 1/32, or 1/64, or 1/128, or 1/256, or 1/512, or 1/1024 or ...

What about adoptions?

I believe that this is going to require a whole review of the relationship and responsibility of the current government and all aboriginals and Metis. I also believe that this is going to undermine aboriginal claims and is not good news for the aboriginal community.

I doubt it will get much larger. Pragmatically, what is the purpose of expanding membership? There is not much in it for organizations to get larger memberships, there is much benefit to getting organized better. . I expect that Trudeau will come under heavy pressure to provide a billion or two for Metis groups to a) formalize their organization both locally and nationally through offices and infrastructure , and pay their leadership and organizations. provide funding to undertake land claims and ongoing operating funding for expanded organization , as has been done and is done for other First Nations groups across Canada.

[Big Guy]

Who (or what organization) will make a decision if I qualify as a Metis or not?

[andromeda]

why should anyone born in this country today have more rights than others or be treated differently in a court of law simply on account of who their ancestors were? why should there be an obligation on the rest of the country to preserve a way of life that existed hundreds of years ago that really doesn't exist anymore? I've never done anything to any indigenous person (or anyone else for that matter) so why should I feel guilt?

[Accountability Now]

I doubt it will get much larger. Pragmatically, what is the purpose of expanding membership?

The past cases will be tried on a case by case basis. It's up to the individual's family that had the scrip or who had the wrong doing to bring it forward. The more of these cases, the more money and more attention to their cause

[eyeball]

What we really need are a couple of activist Metis judges - somebody with the appropriate moral and ethical background

Edited April 16, 2016 by eyeball

[Guest]

What we really need are a couple of activist Metis judges - somebody with the appropriate moral and ethical background

To favour their own people? That's moral and ethical for you...

Edited April 16, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

To favour their own people? That's moral and ethical for you...

The weirdness about the Left is that they are determined to have more representation on police, government, in courts, etc., because they feel that a mainly white group will not properly treat visible minorities. The corollary never occurs to them. If one accepts their hypothesis then it follows that non-white judges, police, courts, politicians, etc., will treat the majority of citizens unfairly. Which would surely be even worse.