Figleaf Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 (edited) . Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 The issue I think they disagree with you on is the postulate that the Canadian government is not bound by its agreements.But the devil is always in the detail and interpretation. If the gov't cannot live up to the terms of a deal for political reasons then it must offer compensation and calculating 'fair' compensation is a difficult thing to do. The court will always take into account fairness to all parties when determining whether compensation is fair. The recent divoice case is an example. The SCC ruled that parents are liable for retroactive child support if they do not disclose an increase in income but then let two fathers off the hook because imposing retroactive support would cause undo hardship in their cases.In anycase, I will concede completely eliminating the concept of aboriginal title will be a extremely difficult thing to do given the current political environment. However, aboriginal title is a vague concept which does not mean aboriginal have sovereignty over the land - it means they have an interest in the land that cannot be ignored. There is huge difference between saying you own the land and saying you have an interest in it. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yam Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Yes. And is this not what the metis natives are falling victim to? The legal definition of metis as aboriginal as opposed to sovereign first nation. I think the aboriginal definition includes some melting pot principle and claims to rights, whereas anybody defined by the latter has particularistic legal issues relating to specific sovereign treaty rights. Hence, metis are often pushed and pulled through the maze of interpretations concerning recognition of status, blood quantum vs culture - ugly things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okwaho Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Aboriginal rights flow from agreements between the British/Canadian crown and various aboriginal nations and as such are not within the pure purview of the government to change as it sees fit.The gov't has the power to recind any contract or agreement that is not in the public interest - this includes any treaty with any foriegn nation. Doing so will always have political re-percussions which means no gov't should make such a move lightly. However, the gov't always has the power to do it. The only question is whether it is possible to honour these archiac treaties without imposing huge burdens on the non-aboriginal population. If the answer to that question is no then the gov't has all the power it needs to repudiate them. While it may be inefficient, and incongruous with our broader principles to have special entitlements hinging on racial membership, such is the contextual legacy under which we must conduct ourselves.Would you make that argument if the descendents of the orginal white settlers had special rights? Canada does NOT have the power to recind any Native treaty because Canada is not sovereign it is autonomous and under British sovereignty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Get a grip, the government can do as it pleases. Don't like a SCC ruling? Appeal it until some of the judges die off and you can appoint ones with a more favourable position! In this nation anything is possible, because the people want it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Get a grip, the government can do as it pleases. Don't like a SCC ruling? Appeal it until some of the judges die off and you can appoint ones with a more favourable position!In this nation anything is possible, because the people want it that way. Beautiful! Simply Beautiful. If they ever have a contest for a national slogan enter that. ^ Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Not bad for an Alberta Separatist eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Not bad for an Alberta Separatist eh? LMAO Not bad at all. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 I think I have a right to all of North Western Quebec, because that's approximately where my ancestors lived, worked the land and all that. Not even many Indians in this area, we could have actually been first. So why am I not entitled to that land, plus reservation handouts for my extended family that choose to move back when I kick everyone else out? See how foolish the argument is? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okwaho Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Get a grip, the government can do as it pleases. Don't like a SCC ruling? Appeal it until some of the judges die off and you can appoint ones with a more favourable position!In this nation anything is possible, because the people want it that way. Obviously you don't understand how your political and legal system operate! Every Act has to have Royal Assent from the Crown in order to become law! Canada is still subject to Great Britain. Are you familiar with the following? Covenent Chain Two Row Wampum Treaty of Utrecht 1713, Atricle XV Treat of Paris 1783 Jay Treaty 1794, Article III Treaty of Ghent 1814, Article IX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponyboy Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 I think I have a right to all of North Western Quebec, because that's approximately where my ancestors lived, worked the land and all that. Not even many Indians in this area, we could have actually been first. So why am I not entitled to that land, plus reservation handouts for my extended family that choose to move back when I kick everyone else out?See how foolish the argument is? North western Quebec???Tell that to the Cree fool. See how foolish YOU are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with fishes Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 The issue I think they disagree with you on is the postulate that the Canadian government is not bound by its agreements.But the devil is always in the detail and interpretation. If the gov't cannot live up to the terms of a deal for political reasons then it must offer compensation and calculating 'fair' compensation is a difficult thing to do. The court will always take into account fairness to all parties when determining whether compensation is fair. The recent divoice case is an example. The SCC ruled that parents are liable for retroactive child support if they do not disclose an increase in income but then let two fathers off the hook because imposing retroactive support would cause undo hardship in their cases.In anycase, I will concede completely eliminating the concept of aboriginal title will be a extremely difficult thing to do given the current political environment. However, aboriginal title is a vague concept which does not mean aboriginal have sovereignty over the land - it means they have an interest in the land that cannot be ignored. There is huge difference between saying you own the land and saying you have an interest in it. KWE HALITO i came to this so called discussion, to explain the spirit side to the equation! you talk of freedoms and the right to practice ones beliefs.Yet for five hundred years the crown and now canada have stolen and continue to steel. what you fail to understand is the land is a large part of said beliefs.i posted this poem, i received a reply from a wise man, Spirit wanderer from the u.s he said he is english, german and chocktaw { We are woven into the fabric of this nation} there are many, who have come full circle.This goes for all Indigeonous peoples So all those people you say are afraid, might be native, whether from here or some where else, like i said at the beginning, the white brother still only sees with his eyes. All the other colours are waiting. YOKOKE The plight of the natives are a blight on this land Where have all, the Natives gone? Along time passing, Where have all, the Natives gone? Along time ago. Are they still here? Does anybody know? Are they being preserved, on the Reserve? Does this, hit a nerve. Drinking poison water. Does anybody care. Living where, they are told, Nowing that they, have been sold. Governments think, they are bold. When Judgement day comes, They will be the ones. Who are left out, in the cold. Along time comming. Where have all, the Natives gone? White eyes have not yet won. Where have all, the Natives gone? When Gods plan is done. To spread around the world, The souls of the Holy ones. WE will know where the Natives have gone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 I think I have a right to all of North Western Quebec, because that's approximately where my ancestors lived, worked the land and all that. Not even many Indians in this area, we could have actually been first. So why am I not entitled to that land, plus reservation handouts for my extended family that choose to move back when I kick everyone else out? See how foolish the argument is? North western Quebec???Tell that to the Cree fool. See how foolish YOU are. Actually, this area of land has no Indian settlement, I've talked to Cree about it, as you called me, fool. Oh well though, I'm sure you actually believe the Indians are entitled to all the country so there is no point arguing about it. If my family was there first though, even though we gave up the land in a 'treaty' with another party (ie. purchase agreement), do I have the right to claim it? If not, why do you? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with fishes Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Actually, this area of land has no Indian settlement, I've talked to Cree about it, as you called me, fool. Oh well though, I'm sure you actually believe the Indians are entitled to all the country so there is no point arguing about it. If my family was there first though, even though we gave up the land in a 'treaty' with another party (ie. purchase agreement), do I have the right to claim it? If not, why do you? Halito Alberta wants to seperate from canada,are you afraid the natives will get theirs first WE are well aware of the track record on albertas treatment of all who do not fit there brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponyboy Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 I think I have a right to all of North Western Quebec, because that's approximately where my ancestors lived, worked the land and all that. Not even many Indians in this area, we could have actually been first. So why am I not entitled to that land, plus reservation handouts for my extended family that choose to move back when I kick everyone else out? See how foolish the argument is? North western Quebec???Tell that to the Cree fool. See how foolish YOU are. Actually, this area of land has no Indian settlement, I've talked to Cree about it, as you called me, fool. Oh well though, I'm sure you actually believe the Indians are entitled to all the country so there is no point arguing about it. If my family was there first though, even though we gave up the land in a 'treaty' with another party (ie. purchase agreement), do I have the right to claim it? If not, why do you? If the treaties were invalid.I remember reading an article which stated,because the First Nations people did not have a good understanding of English,the government of the day would use the word "cede" rather than the plain english give up,hence they would tell them,there duty was to cede the land,the first Nations thought they were talking about 'seed" of course they signed.you want to defend scum that would do such a thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 I remember reading an article which stated,because the First Nations people did not have a good understanding of English,the government of the day would use the word "cede" rather than the plain english give up,hence they would tell them,there duty was to cede the land,the first Nations thought they were talking about 'seed" of course they signed.you want to defend scum that would do such a thing?Oh really. I thought the law is the law? If someone signs a contract that they do not really understand that contract is still valid and enforceable. Sounds like you are only interested in doing things according to the _law_ when it is to your advantage. Sorry - don't work that way. You can either say everything is up for renegotiation or nothing is. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_...WtkBHNlYwM3MTg- South Dakota Indians ask government for help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yam Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Could not open this page. I wonder if you can tell me the essence of it. Or rather, what kind of help are they asking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogimaa Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Riverwind, can you please come up with a different arguement, instead of the same drivel in different words, your a disgrace. Speaking of disgraces, why hasn't the originally question been answered? It would have added so much to the conversation, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Could not open this page. I wonder if you can tell me the essence of it. Or rather, what kind of help are they asking for? I don't know why the other link won't work but this is the main Yahoo page. Try this: http://news.yahoo.com/i/533;_ylt=AlovZFeVh...WtkBHNlYwM3MTg- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 If the treaties were invalid.I remember reading an article which stated,because the First Nations people did not have a good understanding of English,the government of the day would use the word "cede" rather than the plain english give up,hence they would tell them,there duty was to cede the land,the first Nations thought they were talking about 'seed" of course they signed.you want to defend scum that would do such a thing? If the treaties are invalid, why am I paying for post-secondary education for Indians? Or subsidizing their businesses by allowing them to operate tax free on reserve land? If there is no treaty in place and all the Indian laws are invalid, then it's just pure racism against me. So why do you get the benefits of an agree and none of the costs apply? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponyboy Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 If the treaties were invalid.I remember reading an article which stated,because the First Nations people did not have a good understanding of English,the government of the day would use the word "cede" rather than the plain english give up,hence they would tell them,there duty was to cede the land,the first Nations thought they were talking about 'seed" of course they signed.you want to defend scum that would do such a thing? If the treaties are invalid, why am I paying for post-secondary education for Indians? Or subsidizing their businesses by allowing them to operate tax free on reserve land? If there is no treaty in place and all the Indian laws are invalid, then it's just pure racism against me. So why do you get the benefits of an agree and none of the costs apply? Oh! Geoffy,you are hilarious,that sounds like that old bugga boo used against those on welfare.Guess what,your money's not being used for what you say,my money is,your money's are being used to support george w's clone little stevie.There does that make you feel better.That's what makes me laugh about those who complain about their money going to those on welfare,i'm sure those on welfare have all kinds of relatives working who don't begrudge their tax dollars being used for those who really need it. Not the slugs who never work,i mean the ones stuck in a rut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yam Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Could not open this page. I wonder if you can tell me the essence of it. Or rather, what kind of help are they asking for? I don't know why the other link won't work but this is the main Yahoo page. Try this: http://news.yahoo.com/i/533;_ylt=AlovZFeVh...WtkBHNlYwM3MTg- Thankyou for this! So it would seem that help is needed from the government in the protection of the sioux nations sacred mountain. Or rather, and importantly to ask the government to restrain its own biker gangs that attend biker rallies and abuse the site with sales of alcohol etc. All in all disrespecting the sacred site/mountain. I suppose its rather like the non-native population in a particular town having a bunch of drunk bikers (the article mentioned mobile alcho stands) partying in the local graveyard - peeing against headstones and vomiting behind the church etc. I guess we would have to lobby government if the police failed to cooperate against hooliganism and vandalisation. . . . Still, im wondering what your major point was anyway. Are you questioning the right for the sioux leader to do this in view of previous posts concerning the use of social services ie afterall they do not pay taxes? Or were you posting it to show the incompetancy of Indian Affairs INAC etc as a protection? Not that many would disagree with you or the artical there - For such institutions are really branches off of government rule and leadership as opposed to indigenous autonomous structures of negotiation. Again, thanks for sending artical. I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Get a grip, the government can do as it pleases. Don't like a SCC ruling? Appeal it until some of the judges die off and you can appoint ones with a more favourable position! In this nation anything is possible, because the people want it that way. Obviously you don't understand how your political and legal system operate! Every Act has to have Royal Assent from the Crown in order to become law! Canada is still subject to Great Britain. Are you familiar with the following? Covenent Chain Two Row Wampum Treaty of Utrecht 1713, Atricle XV Treat of Paris 1783 Jay Treaty 1794, Article III Treaty of Ghent 1814, Article IX Obviously you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Royal Assent is simply a rubber stamp applied by the Governor General, who is a political appointee chosen by the Prime Minister. The Covenant Chain was a British agreement relevant to American Colonies, there is a hint there in case you were not actuallly reading up on this crap. Go and try to get the Americans to give you some land tommorrow based on that document. By the way good luck with that one. Two Row Wampum, how about a quote from one of your own people..."The chiefs said that some time in the future, a big wind would come and blow the two vessels apart. And those standing with one foot in the boat and one in the canoe would fall into the river of life, and no power this side of the creation could save them." Oren Lyons (Seneca) Faithkeeper, Onondaga Nation Go figure, a very smart person said that. I think he was right. Again though this was a treaty created in the United States. Treaty of Utrecht 1713, Atricle XV, not sure how you figure this comes into play but I am willing to listen? Treat of Paris 1783; again this is relevant to the United States, not Canada. Jay Treaty 1794, Article III; again you should talk to the Americans about going across the border. It seems the Supreme Court of Canada still figures most first nations folks get to pay duty though.... Treaty of Ghent 1814, Article IX; another referance to the United States but hardly relevant to this discussion at all. In fact I fail to see any mention of first nations at all in that Treaty, but it did end the war between what is now Canada and the United States. Your post failed to make any points with me my friend, you still have made no case. But you just keep trying fellas, that is your right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Thankyou for this!So it would seem that help is needed from the government in the protection of the sioux nations sacred mountain. Or rather, and importantly to ask the government to restrain its own biker gangs that attend biker rallies and abuse the site with sales of alcohol etc. All in all disrespecting the sacred site/mountain. I suppose its rather like the non-native population in a particular town having a bunch of drunk bikers (the article mentioned mobile alcho stands) partying in the local graveyard - peeing against headstones and vomiting behind the church etc. I guess we would have to lobby government if the police failed to cooperate against hooliganism and vandalisation. . . . Still, im wondering what your major point was anyway. Are you questioning the right for the sioux leader to do this in view of previous posts concerning the use of social services ie afterall they do not pay taxes? Or were you posting it to show the incompetancy of Indian Affairs INAC etc as a protection? Not that many would disagree with you or the artical there - For such institutions are really branches off of government rule and leadership as opposed to indigenous autonomous structures of negotiation. Again, thanks for sending artical. I It is incompetency of the U.S. Indian Affairs secretary. The poorest people in all of the U.S. live in South Dakota and the poorest of the poor are Indians. It doesn't seem like much they're asking for in this case and the government is brushing them off. I don't think that was the case when in Canada when the provinces and the federal government came to an agreement on the First Nations. Hopefully, Harper will ratify that agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.