Petition to Abolish the Indian Act

[scribblet]

Check this out, I wonder how many signatures they'll get. Maybe it will get the ball rolling towards reform and equality for ALL people.

https://secure.lexi.net/ctf/petitions.php?petition_id=8

Canadian Taxpayer's Federation Petitons to abolish Native welfare and have Natives recognized a full citizens.

Abolish the Indian Act

To the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

Treating one ethnic group of Canadians differently from another is wrong both morally and intellectually. However, Canada’s Indian Act does precisely that.

There are no legal or constitutional barriers to ending the exercise of federal jurisdiction over Indians. Though the federal government has sole jurisdiction, that does not also mean that it must exercise it. Therefore, the federal government can abolish the Indian Act and the policies of segregation at any time.

I the undersigned believe:

To end the practice of segregation and to achieve equality for all Canadians, the Indian Act must be phased out over the next 20 years.

[margrace]

The idea is to promote capitalism, You see these native peoles are living communily. That is against the beliefs of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. The boarding schools were supposed to make these people good bidable people, Education was to make them meek and mild. Well it has backfired and we have a big mess. Education does not work that way, it tends to make people think for themselves, why do you think the war lords in Afghanistan did not want the women educated? It causes big problems for men. What is the difference in the beliefs of the Canadian Taxpapers Federation and the beliefs of the war lords.

When you destroy the social fabric of a group of people and then complain because they have no morals or sound capatalistic beliefs what do you expect. Think about it.

Edited August 26, 2007 by margrace

[Drea]

I signed the petition.

Everyone who believes the native people's of this country deserve the freedom that others have, please sign it. The Indian Act is bad for Indians and bad for the RoC.

[scribblet]

The idea is to promote capitalism, You see these native peoles are living communily. That is against the beliefs of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. The boarding schools were supposed to make these people good bidable people, Education was to make them meek and mild. Well it has backfired and we have a big mess. Education does not work that way, it tends to make people think for themselves, why do you think the war lords in Afghanistan did not want the women educated? It causes big problems for men. What is the difference in the beliefs of the Canadian Taxpapers Federation and the beliefs of the war lords.

When you destroy the social fabric of a group of people and then complain because they have no morals or sound capatalistic beliefs what do you expect. Think about it.

Really, and they are not into capitalism now, they don't run huge money making casinos etc. etc. etc. You think the Chief aren't war lords - wow.

Your right that the current system isn't working, it needs to be changed. This is more about equality and and redirecting billions of dollars of federal funding to natives who live off reserve. The current reserve system is broken, billions of dollars are funneled into them and for what - more poverty and some rich chiefs. They are not doing too well in the current social fabric in many of the reserves they need to be given a chance to be full and equal citizens, and eventually weaned off taxpayer dollars.

http://www.newtfn.com/

[geoffrey]

Definitely signed the petition. I'd love to see the end of DNA based privledge in Canada. Especially when the majority of us never see those benefits and pay massive amounts of money to guarntee them.

It's time to move on folks. Let's join the 21st century. Equal rights for everyone.

[August1991]

There are no legal or constitutional barriers to ending the exercise of federal jurisdiction over Indians. Though the federal government has sole jurisdiction, that does not also mean that it must exercise it. Therefore, the federal government can abolish the Indian Act and the policies of segregation at any time.

The issue is not really whether the federal government exercices jurisdiction over Indians or not. The federal government has obligations to Indians through a variety of treaties signed with the Crown. These were partly summarized in the first Indian Act of 1876 and in subsequent acts.

I suspect that the Supreme Court would block any attempt of the federal government to back away from its obligations. The federal government can rescind the Indian Act but it can't unilaterally change its obligations.

Edited August 26, 2007 by August1991

[Posit]

Nor can an act of parliament make sovereign people become Canadians against their will. The petition is nothing more than one more attempt at prolonging genocide against aboriginal people.

[Riverwind]

Nor can an act of parliament make sovereign people become Canadians against their will. The petition is nothing more than one more attempt at prolonging genocide against aboriginal people.

Natives in Canada are no more sovereign than Taiwan is part of China. The entire notion is an absurdity born of political correctness.

[geoffrey]

Nor can an act of parliament make sovereign people become Canadians against their will. The petition is nothing more than one more attempt at prolonging genocide against aboriginal people.

Genocide? You surely have to be kidding me. All those free services, tax free life on the reserve, and special legal consideration sure don't sound like genocide. It's apartheid, with this minority group upheld by the majority that just don't care enough to stop it.

They aren't sovereign, by the way. Sovereign people can fund their own actitives and uphold their own law. Most Indian bands have never been fiscally viable. They are Canadians that travel on Canadian passports. Until that changes, don't even go there.

[Pliny]

The issue is not really whether the federal government exercices jurisdiction over Indians or not. The federal government has obligations to Indians through a variety of treaties signed with the Crown. These were partly summarized in the first Indian Act of 1876 and in subsequent acts.

I suspect that the Supreme Court would block any attempt of the federal government to back away from its obligations. The federal government can rescind the Indian Act but it can't unilaterally change its obligations.

You are most likely right. Aboriginals would have to agree to abolish the Indian Act and the obligations of the government. It would be good if aboriginals did so. They could then contribute to the creation of a Canadian culture. Right now they are not allowed. They have to be brought around to the understanding that being given everything is certain death. I think that is evident judging the conditions seen on most reserves. I believe some have understood that and attempt to become self sufficient or are already self-sufficient. It is like our health care system where the institutional structure is more important than the people it is supposed to serve and those receiving benefit won't allow any meaningful change. The defenders of the status quo are the power brokers who tell the rest of the people what to think. What do the natives think for the most part? I believe it is that Canada owes them a living.

[Vagabond]

You cannot rewrite history!

This is not Wikipedia!

Before anyone goes changing this and changing that maybe you should read the truth from the people who know.

The so called "canadian" government has been pulling the wool over everyones eyes ... please take a few minutes and read these powerful messgaes of truth at www.newtfn.com/thewholetruth

[Posit]

Natives in Canada are no more sovereign than Taiwan is part of China.

The SCoC doesn't agree with you.

Genocide? You surely have to be kidding me.

The treatment of aboriginals in Canada is genocide as defined by the UN. It is on-going and persistent, and Indian Act is the authority to continue it. However, the legal duty under treaties, aboriginal right and the fiduciary responsibility of the government cannot be altered without the natives' consent.

[Pliny]

You cannot rewrite history!

This is not Wikipedia!

Before anyone goes changing this and changing that maybe you should read the truth from the people who know.

The so called "canadian" government has been pulling the wool over everyones eyes ... please take a few minutes and read these powerful messgaes of truth at www.newtfn.com/thewholetruth

What makes you think our government treats us any better than you? They steal our property and give it to you. You of course might not consider it our property they are stealing form us but we think it is because they tell us that. You should get a handle on how property becomes "property" or at least how it really should become property. And whether or not it is public, communal or private property. Governments have not learned to respect private property although there still is some semblance of the concept in America, that concept is gradually disappearing as well. So don't worry the State will be the great equalizer.

[Adelle]

The SCoC doesn't agree with you.

The treatment of aboriginals in Canada is genocide as defined by the UN. It is on-going and persistent, and Indian Act is the authority to continue it. However, the legal duty under treaties, aboriginal right and the fiduciary responsibility of the government cannot be altered without the natives' consent.

The term apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans) refers primarily to a system of segregation used in South Africa between 1948 and 1994. The term has come to be used as an analogy or epithet to describe some discriminatory or allegedly discriminatory practises beyond South Africa.

The term ' apartheid' didn't even exist when the Treaty system was being developed and 'Indian' nations actually were nations, It is legacy of that system that we live under today with separate and isolated 'Reserves' that could in no way ever meet the definition of 'Nations'. Although Canada is one of many real nations that have recently been accused of apartheid, particularly as regards the Native situation, the Indian Act definitely doesn't meet the definition of genocide.

The legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The residential schools and forced foster care and adoption would have fit the last portion about "forcibly transferring children" but these have been abolished for some time.

The Globe and Mail had an excellent treatment of this subject back in 2001 at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/apartheid/ . This is truely and ongoing problem.

[noahbody]

You cannot rewrite history!

This is not Wikipedia!

Before anyone goes changing this and changing that maybe you should read the truth from the people who know.

The so called "canadian" government has been pulling the wool over everyones eyes ... please take a few minutes and read these powerful messgaes of truth at www.newtfn.com/thewholetruth

From the casino page:

We would like to remind everyone of the dire social conditions here and 3 suicides and

countless attempts in 05-06.

More to come shortly!

[Posit]

The removal of children from their homes and communities is more prevalent now than during residential schools. Only now it is under the guise of protecting children under child welfare legislation. In most cases, children are removed because of their impoverish conditions.

Further, the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides:

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

( Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

© Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Many of the suggestions made by posters in this thread advocate "cultural genocide" against native people. While this draft declaration has not been ratified, Canada, the US and Russia stand opposed.

South Africa modeled apartheid on the way Canada treated its indigenous peoples. Segregation, marginalization and racism continue to exist in Canada.

As far as native sovereignty goes, both SCoC and the Governor General recognize it.

[Riverwind]

As far as native sovereignty goes, both SCoC and the Governor General recognize it.

The UN and most member states acknowledge that China has 'sovereignty' over Taiwan. Everyone knows it is a big joke that persists because of political expediency. Native 'sovereignty' is no different. Canada is the only sovereign nation and it is the constitution of Canada that determines what laws apply in all of its terroritory. This constitution may delegate the power over some laws to lower tiers of government including native groups but delegating authority does not in any way change the reality.

Calling what happened to the Natives 'genocide' is an insult to people who were real victims of genocide. This abuse of language in the name of political propoganda renders the language useless over time.

BTW - please provide links to SCC judgements that indicate that natives are 'soveriegn' outside of the state of Canada. SCC has always ruled that Canadian law is the only law that applies and native rights are a function of Canadian law which happens to be built on certain British traditions.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

Canada is the only sovereign nation and it is the constitution of Canada that determines.....blah, blah, blah....

Prove it! You have been flapping you gums about this but never seem to offer any proof. So here's your chance!

The SCoC and the Governor General both recognize First Nations sovereignty. That is hardly "political expediency". Last time I checked the SCoC had the last word on the law in Canada - including the interpretation of the Charter. While Canada cannot define the pre-existing sovereignty of various First Nations, the SCoC has at least recognized it. That's enough to tell amateurs like you that your opinion is worth the water you are sitting on.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Posit

[Riverwind]

Prove it! You have been flapping you gums about this but never seem to offer any proof. So here's your chance!

From the Delgamuukw decision:

“the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown”. Let us face it, we are all here to stay.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997...7rcs3-1010.html

The SCC has been very clear - the Crown is the only sovereign entity and aboriginal title is simply an obligation that the Crown must deal with. I have never read anything produced by the SCC that says that aboriginal groups are sovereign entities in themselves. Can you provide a link to a SCC judgement that supports your view?

While Canada cannot define the pre-existing sovereignty of various First Nations, the SCoC has at least recognized it.

The SCC has recognized the pre-existing rights that aboriginal groups have because they were sovereign at some time in the past but that is very different from claiming that aboriginal groups are sovereign entities today.

I realize that some politicians will say the right words and will pay lip service to the notion of nation-to-nation negotiations. However, this is all largely a polite sham. Canada is the only sovereign state with jurisdiction at this time. I suppose some aboriginals in the north could vote to separate from Canada and create their own sovereign state, however, that would mean they would be completely on their own and could no longer expect billions in subsidises from the south. OTOH - they would really be 'sovereign'.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[geoffrey]

The SCoC doesn't agree with you.

The treatment of aboriginals in Canada is genocide as defined by the UN. It is on-going and persistent, and Indian Act is the authority to continue it. However, the legal duty under treaties, aboriginal right and the fiduciary responsibility of the government cannot be altered without the natives' consent.

Sure it can be. The government is sovereign in Canada. They can ignore and change what they wish. It's not pretty, but it can be done, without consent. Ever heard of an expropriation?

There is no genocide in Canada. You should really stop degradign the term and insulting all the real victims in the process.

Indians live above the law and with special rights only afford to those with the right DNA. That's not genocide. Quite the opposite. The fact that they can't develop a social structure to succeed with all the advantages they get, is truly not our responsibility any longer. Cut them off, and they'll either starve or succeed... much more likely the later.

The term ' apartheid' didn't even exist when the Treaty system was being developed and 'Indian' nations actually were nations, It is legacy of that system that we live under today with separate and isolated 'Reserves' that could in no way ever meet the definition of 'Nations'. Although Canada is one of many real nations that have recently been accused of apartheid, particularly as regards the Native situation, the Indian Act definitely doesn't meet the definition of genocide.

Apartheid would suggest those under the Indian Act live disadvantaged lives due to policy and law. That's simply not the case. They have far more rights than any other Canadian and more accessible programs. It's not comparable IMO.

The residential schools and forced foster care and adoption would have fit the last portion about "forcibly transferring children" but these have been abolished for some time.

They never real fit that description. The goal was to educate them in the ways of European society, not to eliminate their racial group. Other than the Metis, there wasn't much interbreding as you'd expect if that was the real goal.

This is truely and ongoing problem.

The solution is assimilation and equality of right, not segeration and special DNA perks. Unfortunatley, most people don't see it that way. Strings free cash to the Indians (aka Kelowna Accord) will never solve any of the social issues. Cutting off the money will.

By the way, good to see you posting again.

[Adelle]

There is no genocide in Canada. You should really stop degradign the term and insulting all the real victims in the process.

I have to agree with you. My father served in places where genocide was REAL.

When someone says “Genocide” people think of rounding up specific groups and killing them (ie. Jews) but, as defined by the UN it can mean other things as well, particularly the nationalization of another culture (ie. The Canadianization of Natives, the Bulgarianization of Greeks (1940’s)). The residential schools were supposed to be about education but Natives could be punished harshly for honouring their gods, speaking their language, displaying their culture and they were required to adopt European culture and religion. This is what I referred to as per the UN definition.

The reserve system is a product of both government policy and law and could definitely be defined as apartheid and the residents are kept separate from society but if you said ‘apartheid’ in the 1800’s people would look at you funny. The closest equivalent then was ghettoization and even that was restricted to Jews. They do receive special privileges as a part of various treaty agreements over the centuries, where the governments of Canada have actually met those treaty obligations. Special hunting rights (as a recognition of original hunter/gatherer culture) and no taxation are part of that as well as a seemingly constant flow of money from Ottawa but the residents still seem to life in isolation, destitution and squalor. High birth rate, high infant mortality, high toxin abuse, depression, suicide, crime, low education, terrible housing and living conditions. Why anyone stays on the reserve is beyond me, of course some are now pushing for treaty rights while living in downtown Toronto.

Sure it can be. The government is sovereign in Canada. They can ignore and change what they wish. It's not pretty, but it can be done, without consent. Ever heard of an expropriation?

The solution, if any exist, would include the Government of Canada dealing with the Treaties that haven’t been dealt with and giving the individual “Nations” EXACTLY what the Treaty’s say they should. It would also include the First Nations becoming self-sufficient and self-governing but with the factions involved in each ‘Nation’ (ie. Mohawk Warriors) some of them might end up making the situation in Gaza look like an example of good government.

The problem is that most Native areas are just too small to be self-sufficient. They are more like Counties or small Towns. Perhaps a new, final Treaty could be made giving First Nations a large enough parcel of land (say Labrador as an example) that would either be a Territory of Canada or that they could develop and run any way they wish as a sovereign nation, sink or swim. This act would end all obligations by Canada to any person of Native extraction and those that choose to remain in Canada would be treated as any other Canadian citizen, with all inherent rights, privileges and responsibilities.

By the way, good to see you posting again.

Thanks.

[Pliny]

I have to agree with geoffery on this one. The solution is assimilation. I believe that because it is inclusive and makes the individual feel part of the bigger picture. All other solutions are exclusive and divisive. We cannot ignore the future and live in the past by placing cultures in formaldehyde. What should the future hold? It is up to all of us to create it. There will never be a Canadian culture as long as we are divided into pockets of minority groups sanctioned to be sovereign.

Governments; here we go again, are about force. If Europeans had not ventured from their continent Indian nations would have expanded and had their own tribal wars as soon as there became enough of a populace to concern themselves with property, perhaps committing tribal genocide or assimilation of smaller tribes themselves. This is the nature of the collective, and government is the agency that mobilizes and enforces the collective will, or the assigned or enforced representative of the collective will.

When I see a website such as that posted by vagabond I know it is entirely about race. The individual has no concept of private property and it is only when the individual can own property and not have it threatened by government that he has stability and can be productive, thus creating an atmosphere where productivity is encouraging and plenty can be created. It is true that his lands were stolen centuries ago but they did not inhabit all of the continent. They had their areas and they fought for them among, not only Euopeans, but themselves. What culture or civilization would they have created left to their own devices? Is that what the crying is about?

Well governments have a tendency to wish to expand themselves, if not outside their borders then within them, whether, as it was centuries ago, by divine right or parliamentary decree, or revolution. The argument of stolen property would replace the Czar in Russia, and various other monarchies around the world, and find the Catholic church without real estate. Unfortunately or fortunately depending upon your view, there is enough force and collective will to maintain the existing structure. It is forever changing, whether it changes by force or as a co-operative evolutionary process depends today upon how well governments are held to respect private property. They haven't in the past and vigilance is necessary to have them do so in the present and the future.

[Posit]

The solution is assimilation.

I see, mien fuhrer. What you are talking about is cultural genocide. It has been tried and failed. So tell us....what is your "final solution"? Gas chambers?

[geoffrey]

I see, mien fuhrer. What you are talking about is cultural genocide. It has been tried and failed. So tell us....what is your "final solution"? Gas chambers?

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm talking about stopping all funding of DNA based rights so that everyone is on an equal playing field. That way, those Indians that wish to retain their lifestyles (because, I mean, so many hunt Buffalo and live in Tipi's, right) can and the rest can continue on their modern existance.

This Indian culture bullshit is beyond belief. Ukrainian Canadians retain their culture without billions of dollars. So do Irish Canadians, German Canadians, ect., ect.. The French, well, they may be in the same boat as the Indians, but I figure I've said cut them off too for sometime.

Most Indians drive automobiles, live in houses and work in jobs. Their culture is their past-time. There is no justification in the government supporting that further.

I'm French and Irish. Should the government protect my culture from 'genocide' by providing me with a Guiness a day and a block of cheese? Nah. It wouldn't do anything anyways. Just like giving Indians 100 rounds of ammunition and a new cloak every year as per some treaties does nothing to preserve or further anyone.

[Riverwind]

I see, mien fuhrer. What you are talking about is cultural genocide. It has been tried and failed. So tell us....what is your "final solution"? Gas chambers?

Right. So what happens to a Natives who refuse to 'assimilate' into the culture of there ancestors? Are they respected for their decision or are they treated at turncoats and outcasts by their cousins? If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you have no problem with forced cultural assimilation as long as you approve of the culture doing the assimilation. So spare us your phoney rants about 'cultural genocide'. Edited August 29, 2007 by Riverwind