We pay while Indians live in luxury

[Ontario Voter]

deleted

Edited October 7, 2007 by Ontario Voter

[Riverwind]

"35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed."

"Can" doesn't mean "will". There is no "will" to change the constitution and the Canadian government cannot change the rights of Native. Go reread the Charter. It says

No where does it afford First Nations these rights as is does in the rest of the Charter....

This argument has nothing to do with the charter. Section 35 goes on to say:

The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part...

The wording is pretty clear. All parts of the constitution dealing with aboriginals can be amended provided the process outlined in Section 35.1 is followed. Section 35.1 does not give aboriginals any veto.

It is clear you do not understand the nature of law. Law is an artificial construct that reflects the society that created and enforces the law. No law can ever bind a society without its ongoing consent. If the people of Canada choose to change the law regarding aboriginal rights then they can.

[Live From China]

As a country, we've been so infected by political correctness, so many people won't stand up and the racism card is used against us to shut us up, a mere difference of opinion makes us racist. I've noticed that a poster on Babble also has posted here and Greg banned her numerous times and she just kept signing back up so they have people out there that just go on every site they can minimizing what is actually happening or blaming it on others.

Thanks, OV. PC is a disease that is infecting this country.

The oral history question has always made me a bit suspect. I think that if any group with an oral tradition stood to obtain huge areas of land and make millions of dollars, I don't think they would be above altering the so-called facts. Especially, if anger and vengeance were fuelling them. In some circles (usually among those who aren't PC) this is known as lying. Or perhaps even perjury, if you follow my drift!

Funny, I think I have noticed this banned poster as well.

[Posit]

The Supreme Court didn't accept oral history on the word of one person. The test requires a number of different sources of the same event and it is the commonalities that give it credibility.

So what China are you in to killing the messenger because you can't debate the topic. How silly to think you were capable of having a rational discussion. My bad....

[guyser]

So posit, how much do you stand to make on all this? You know, your cut of the action.

Maybe you will tell us you do all this for altruistic reasons?

Naw, I doubt it.

[Live From China]

So what China are you in to killing the messenger because you can't debate the topic. How silly to think you were capable of having a rational discussion. My bad....

???????????

Just following the methods you have taught us!

[Posit]

I'm just an ordinary joe with a historical interest in FN. I get nothing out of it except revealing the truth of the government's deceptions. In my career I have a number of opportunities to investigate and to listen to a number of government researchers and elders. It really is abhorrent - the treatment they have received.

We expect them to act like Canadians and be like Canadians and yet WW1 and WW2 didn't receive the same benefits that we paid our veterans. How fair is that? We isolate them on reserves and ignore the fact that their drinking water, and health care and education is substandard. What's the difference between the cultural genocide of the past and that of today? No much when it boils right down to it....

[Riverwind]

We expect them to act like Canadians and be like Canadians and yet WW1 and WW2 didn't receive the same benefits that we paid our veterans.

Neither did Chinese, Japanese or any other non-white person. Racism was normal at the time. I don't see that as a justification for any special treatment today.

How fair is that? We isolate them on reserves and ignore the fact that their drinking water, and health care and education is substandard.

Natives live on reserves by choice. Any can leave anytime they want but choose not to. This is partially a result of a system that provides financial incentives to natives who stay on reserves. (BTW - don't use poverty as an excuse for staying put - dirt poor immigrants come to this country all of the time and most find a way to succeed).

What's the difference between the cultural genocide of the past and that of today? No much when it boils right down to it....

Everyone was expected to assimilate 50+ years ago. My own mother was punished for speaking her native language at school. Different groups like the Dukabors in BC were forced to send their children to government schools. Society has changed and no longer demands that kind of assimilation - in fact our society bends over backwards to help groups to keep their culture.

[Live From China]

I don't see that as a justification for any special treatment today.

Agreed! We have groups who were never the victims of so-called - and very old - wrongdoings asking to be compensated, and they are asking people who never committed them to pay.

[Peter F]

The Crown signed those agreements with the natives in good faith. The Crown actually meant the terms to be fulfilled. When Canada gained its own constitution we agreed , again in good faith, to actually take on the responsibility of fulfilling the obligations of the Crowns treaty's. That was the deal.

I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.

[Riverwind]

I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.

How much more? Would be willing to pay a 15% GST? How about a 25% GST? Would you sign the title of any property that you own to the local indian band and start pay whatever 'rents' they decide to levy?

It is rediculous to make such an open ended commitment when you don't understand what the potential costs are. That is why I take the position that a negotiated settlement that respects the treaties is a good objective to work towards. Unfortunately, if the price is too high then we will have to throw them in the trash.

[ScottSA]

The Crown signed those agreements with the natives in good faith. The Crown actually meant the terms to be fulfilled. When Canada gained its own constitution we agreed , again in good faith, to actually take on the responsibility of fulfilling the obligations of the Crowns treaty's. That was the deal.

I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.

The actual treaties required very little from the crown. A few dollars and beads.

The modern interpretation of the treaties involves things that were never even in existence at the time.

In any event, "The Natives" is a collectivist racial term. In an age in which slavery, anti-semitism and racism were so passe that no one thought twice about it, racial collectivism was fine and that's why the crown dealt with the Indians as a racial group. But this is the 21st century, and we're busy indoctrinating our children with the notion that race is irrelevant, while at the same time practising the opposite. The Indians who are alive today have as little to do with the wrongs done to their forebearers (if indeed immigration then was morally worse than immigration today) as I have to do with the wrongs my forebearers allegedly committed. It's ridiculous that I am supposed to don a hair shirt and pay wergeld because my forefathers broke their backs turning this country into something that can afford such foolishness. If lilly white liberals want to practise condescending paternalism and pretend that Indians still need the great white Bwana to take care of them, then they should play that idiot's game on their own dime.

[Peter F]

I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.

How much more? Would be willing to pay a 15% GST? How about a 25% GST? Would you sign the title of any property that you own to the local indian band and start pay whatever 'rents' they decide to levy?

It is rediculous to make such an open ended commitment when you don't understand what the potential costs are. That is why I take the position that a negotiated settlement that respects the treaties is a good objective to work towards. Unfortunately, if the price is too high then we will have to throw them in the trash.

If the local indian band has the rights to my property, then how could I have ever acquired title to it? By being defrauded by somebody. thats how. Sorta like buying stolen goods. I may not know the goods are stolen - but that doesn't mean the goods belong to me, and the law has determined that they can be taken from me, without compensation and returned to thier rightfull owner. It sucks - but thats the way it works.

Buyer Beware comes to mind.

As for how much I'm willing to pay - I don't know at what point I would say enough is enough. Obviously its a lot further down the line than most others on this thread. But when things start approaching that point I won't be advocating throwing the treatys in the trash. I, as with you, take the position that if things suck that much then lets negotiate a new deal. Of course the Natives will milk that for everything they possibly can. But then, thats bargaining.

From The Treaties of Canada with the Indians by Alexander Morris, 1880

Chapter V, Treaty number three or the North-West Angle Treaty

...

The chief speaker, Mawe-do-pe-nais, thus winding up the conference on the part of the Indians, in his final address to the Lieutenant-Governor and his fellow Commisioners:

''Now you see me stand before you all; what has been done here to-day has been done openly before the Great Spirit and before the nation, and I hope I may never hear any one say that this treaty has been done secretly: and now in closing this council, I take off my glove, and in giving you my hand I deliver over my birthright and lands: and in taking your hand I hold fast all the promises you have made, and I hope they will last as long as the sun rises and the water flows, as you have said.''

The conference then adjourned, and on re-assembling, after the treaty had been read and explained, the Commissioners signed it and the Leiutenant-Governor called on and aged hereditary Chief, Kee-ta-kay-pi-nais, to sign next. The Chief came forward, but declined to touch the pen, saying ''I must first have the money in my hand.'' The Lieutenant-Governor immediately held out his hand, and directed the interpreter to say to the chief, ''Take my hand and feel the money in it. If you cannot trust me for half and hour, do not trust me forever.'' When this was repeated by the interpreter, the Chief smiled, took the outstretched hand, and at once touched the pen...

[Riverwind]

As for how much I'm willing to pay - I don't know at what point I would say enough is enough. Obviously its a lot further down the line than most others on this thread.

Thank you for being intellectually honest enough to admit that you would have say no at some point. I believe that many treaty disputes could be resolved with relatively modest cost to the rest of us and I would prefer that they be resolved amicably. However there are some potentially massive claims (like the Haldimand Grant) which we could not possibly afford to settle if the natives won in court. That is why I feel we need to be honest dispense with the notion that these treaties must be honoured no matter what the cost.

take the position that if things suck that much then lets negotiate a new deal.

You are contradicting yourself - you cannot 'negotiate a new deal' if you are 'obliged to honour' the existing deal. The natives would have no incentive to negotiate. The only way to negotiate a new deal is to refuse to honour the old one and use whatever economic power you have to force the other party to the table.

[Peter F]

You are contradicting yourself - you cannot 'negotiate a new deal' if you are 'obliged to honour' the existing deal. The natives would have no incentive to negotiate. The only way to negotiate a new deal is to refuse to honour the old one and use whatever economic power you have to force the other party to the table.

How about we use whatever economic power we have and force them to accept that thier treatys are nothing ? We could do that. We could also take the ScottSA approach and honour the terms of agreements by adhereing precisely to the clauses. $2.00 per man woman and child per year and a communal plow and one scyth per five families. There are many things we could do. There are many things the natives could do.

True, there is no requirement for Canada to honour any agreement it has ever entered into with anybody.

We don't have to abide by the terms of NATO, or NAFTA, or GTA, or ITU, or anything. Canada can do whatever the government of the day figures is best.

But I would hope that Canada, as a civilized nation, would honour the terms of the agreements to the best of its ability. If its impossible for Canada to honour our obligations, then the government should admit such and offer to open our agreements to re-negotiation or enact those agreements escape clauses. Unfortunately, there are no escape clauses in the First Nations treatys. As long as the FNs continue to abide by the terms of the treatys - and so far they are - then it is our job to adhere to the treaty's also. Even if it is very

expensive. Probably hugely expensive considering the Haldimand claim.

If the treaty's are, as many have suggested on this thread, mere scraps of paper - well, then I guess in the final analysis we each get to decide what to do about it.

[Live From China]

I am wondering if negotiations will also include the ending of government largesse.

[Riverwind]

How about we use whatever economic power we have and force them to accept that their treaties are nothing ? We could do that.

That is my point - we could. That is why any native group seeking a settlement from the government must recognize the political realities and make sure their demands do not impose an undue burden on non-natives.

But I would hope that Canada, as a civilized nation, would honour the terms of the agreements to the best of its ability.

If Canada was a civilized nation it would recognize that 'aboriginal title' and the 'right to own slaves' are racist concepts invented by people long dead that have no place in our society today. There is nothing civilized about entrenching racism in the constitution.

If the treaty's are, as many have suggested on this thread, mere scraps of paper - well, then I guess in the final analysis we each get to decide what to do about it.

My belief is we are headed towards many violent stand offs because the expectations of some native groups are too high.

[Live From China]

My belief is we are headed towards many violent stand offs because the expectations of some native groups are too high.

Sadly, I must agree with you. In fact, it is inevitable. I sincerely believe that most of the FN's groups want this settled at the conference table. I also believe that a small minority do not; in fact, I think this group is only interested in confrontation and revenge (for whatever past wrongs). I am convinced that this minority also terrorizes and provokes its own people I also think that a small minority of non-natives are thinking (I use the word lightly) and acting along the same lines.

Because the government has not stood up in the past, I envision some confrontations will turn very ugly, violent and dangerous.

[Rue]

"Natives rights are feudalism by another name."

Congrats you have been able to demonstrate with just 7 words you haven't a clue about what native rights are about. Usually you need many more paragraphs.

Native rights has nothing to do with feudalism. The feudal system assumed the King owned all land and the unwashed masses were allowed to live on it provided they work the land for him and pay him taxes. How your brain thinks such a system has anything to do witht he collective rights of aboriginals guatanteed to them in treaties with our government and its predecessors is anyone's guess. It seems you just pull these terms out of the hat and use them in what ever context you think they mean but has nothing to do with the law or history. Ah intelligent debate/

[Rue]

"]If Canada was a civilized nation it would recognize that 'aboriginal title' and the 'right to own slaves' are racist concepts invented by people long dead that have no place in our society today."

This mantra you continue to repeat over and over that the collective rights of natives is a racist concept has been pointed out to you over and over again as being disingenuine but you trot it out over and over. I suppose if you think you repeat it long enough someone will agree with it?

For those of us who care to recognize the law and history and actually a definition of racism that is not arbitrarily expropriated and taken out of context, what we know is aboriginals existed prior to the British and French coming to Canada. When the British defeated the French and decided to turn Canada into a crown colony of the King and deem all of the land belonging to the King that same Christian King who thought nothing of being a white supremist racist and simply assume aboriginals were inferior savages and so he could just set forth on the continent in the name of his inbred family with a history of using people as slaves on the land to pay his taxes and of course also in the name of Jesus 9who for sure would believe in land ownership for a monarch) and deem it all his, well that King entered into legal treaties with the aboriginals.

In your world, you hink its racist for aboriginals to try enforce their collective rights and precisely because of your racist selectivity- simply assume you can erase any legal system other then the one you want and of course it would be one where we entrench the racist that an inbred allgedly Christian King owns all the land of Canada.

Its not racist to come to a continent and claim the land in the name of a King and his God, but it is racist for aboriginals to want to be treated as equals. Yah that sounds perfectly logical to me.

See in your defective and may I come right out and say racist depiction of Canada, aboriginals are not equals and never were equals nor should ever be equals. Right now anytime they insist on being treated as equals your convenient memory shuts down and calls them racist for not wanting to be treated in a racist manner. Oh yah makes perfect sense to call someone a racist because they do not want to be treated in a racist manner. Talk about twisting history.

You live in a racist fantasy world if you think you can simply ignore history and the racist treatment of aboriginals and simply start from today as if nothing happened. Got news for you, your Christian heritage still needs to be addressed. As long as you believe in a system that assumes the Queen of a foreign land owns all the land of Canada, this matter will not be fully settled. That racist assumption of crown ownership is what is racist and your attempts to call the people most victimized by this racist assumption as racist is laughable if it did not have so much blood on your hands and the hands of all Canadians who want to simply ignore what happened. Those blood stains don't disappear simply because you say they no longer exist.

[Riverwind]

The feudal system assumed the King owned all land and the unwashed masses were allowed to live on it provided they work the land for him and pay him taxes.

Aboriginal title presumes that natives own all of the land and that non-natives are obliged to compensate (i.e. pay taxes) them for using it. I see no difference.

How your brain thinks such a system has anything to do witht he collective rights of aboriginals guaranteed to them in treaties with our government and its predecessors is anyone's guess.

Feudal systems relied on a noble class identified by their ancestors. The noble class was granted privileges because of their ancestry that no one else is allowed to have. In most cases the 'nobles' earned their position by doing a favour for the king in the past. Collective rights of aboriginals are no different from the 'collective rights' enjoyed by the feudal lords in most of Europe. The feudal lords have been stripped of the privileges in Europe and nobody considers it a problem. The Queen recently lost her tax exempt status because the people of Britain decided that no one should be exempt from taxes because of who their ancestors were. I don't think many British people are feeling guilty about that.

[Catchme]

How about we use whatever economic power we have and force them to accept that their treaties are nothing ? We could do that.

That is my point - we could. That is why any native group seeking a settlement from the government must recognize the political realities and make sure their demands do not impose an undue burden on non-natives.

Why should they recognize any political realities, they have legal contracts that remain unfullfilled.

Why should they make sure their demands do not impose and undue burden on non-natives?

The burden is upon non-natives, legally, and those same non-natives have imposed a undue burden upon FN's for far too long.

[Riverwind]

Why should they make sure their demands do not impose and undue burden on non-natives?

Because they will end up with nothing if they demand too much. The non-native majority in the country decide what the law is. If current laws give natives too much then those laws can be changed and there is nothing any native person can do about it.

[Catchme]

Why should they make sure their demands do not impose and undue burden on non-natives?

Because they will end up with nothing if they demand too much. The non-native majority in the country decide what the law is. If current laws give natives too much then those laws can be changed and there is nothing any native person can do about it.

Nice try, not true, the government would have to outlaw any contractual agreement, and that would not happen.

The only thing that could try to be done would be to change Charter Rights, and that won't happen, and even then it may not work.

[Posit]

"The non-native majority in the country decide what the law is."

That statement leaves me with a piteous view of you. It is a most incorrect statement.

The average majority non-native Canadian is far removed from law making. We have absolutely no say in what is proposed, or how the law is applied. There is no public consultation on legislation unless the government wishes it to be so, and then only after the agenda and outcome is predetermined. The best that we can do is complain, and change our vote during the next election - after which time the damage is already done.

Take the SSM as an example. Nothing we could say or do would sway the previous government. And look what happened. You gave your votes to a "new" government, and they just washed their hands of it. One of the most contentious Canadian issues in the last 100 years and Canadians had no input, whatsoever.

It would be pie-eyed to believe that a majority could sway the party rule.

In spite of the majority, the constitution sets out the rights, government generally follows it and the SCC protects it. But I come back once again to the fact that unless there is a "need" to change the constitution, it will never be changed. And even still, while there might be lots of discussion, Canadians will generally be left out of the decision-making process. In the modern world doing right is more powerful than majority might.

So take your majority rule and find a warm and dark place for it.......It is a delusion.

As to natives getting nothing, I would suggest it is just another delusion. The fact is that legitimate claims payout big, and land and the control of land is being turned over on a regular basis. There is no upper limit to the cost since there has been an unlimited wealth produced from the use of stolen and unceded lands that we all have benefited from. It is only a matter of time.

While I agree that civil war could be the likely outcome, I would also suggest that it would not be strictly a military conflict. More likely it would be waged on the streets and in the bedrooms of the communities that are squatting on native lands, and the infrastructure would be the first to go. Of course I am only speculating, but world conflicts show this as the likely course. Ask them how they fared in Baghdad when the lights when out.