Aboriginal Rights, Canadian Rights, Human Rights- How to do it right?

[jennie]

I am going to preface this by saying what some already know, just to avoid misperceptions:

I DO NOT LIKE POLITICIANS OR GOVERNMENTS ... NONE OF THEM!!

I am not 'party' partisan.

I believe in free enterprise with strict(er) controls on corporate size and power and on their environmental and human outcomes.

I believe in public service and communal social and environmental responsibility.

I vote for whomever I like.

If I have a 'dogma', it is one of my own design: PEOPLE are what is important ... ALL the people ... EVERY SINGLE ONE (including the politicians )

That said ... I am not trying to convince anyone to vote this way or that way ... I would like to have a conversation as Canadians, about how we want our governments to address Indigneous Rights in Canada.

I am not implying anything about what those rights are ... I want to consider all possibilities for ways to accommodate all of our needs for the long haul.

Things have happened ... things are happening that are disturbing to Canadians: Blockades are here to stay.

Nation-wide protests of our failure to address the backlog in land claims, reneging on financial and land agreements, and most importantly ... in EVERY CASE ... the Crown has failed to consult with Indigenous Peoples about development, resource extraction and other uses of the land. I would like to be able to say it is all the Liberals fault and it is changing ... or vice versa but the fact is Ontario and Canada are walking in unison on this, regardless of political differences.

Governments are all walking to the tune of the lawyers' advice on 'limiting liabilities of the Crown'. Period.

That is the entire position we as Canadians support through our governments: We support them acting in whatever way they deem will best 'limit the liabilities of the Crown'. I don't care what colour your political signs are or if you have ever formed a government. If you aspire to politics in Canada, if you support the actions of governments in addressing aboriginal law issues, you support the sole purpose of 'limiting liabilities to the Crown' for that is the only position they have assumed.

Most Canadians want laws obeyed, treaties and agreements honoured, etc. ... in principle.

Can we look at what those are? Just look at the Canadian perspective ... what are the Canadian laws that we, as Canadians, are currently expected to uphold and implement?

What are we as Canadians being asked to support?

Is it supportable?

What can we support?

Do we blindly support the law?

Are we expected to?

Do we expect our governments to?

Do they? If not why not?

If not, what is our role?

This is not an idle exercise. There are currently at least three blockades in Ontario with armed police standing by.

I think we have to ask ourselves whether there is a better way.

I am asking you to help talk about this, think about this ...

Do we want a better way to resolve land disputes?

I think most Canadians do.

That's why I think it is worth discussing ... because if there ever was a time for our input, it is now.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

Most Canadians want laws obeyed, treaties and agreements honoured, etc. ... in principle.

Most Canadians want treaties honoured but only if it is not going to cost them anything. If it is gets too expensive Canadians will tell their politicians to screw the treaties.

The politicians know what they are doing - if they don't 'limit the liability of the crown' they will be replaced by politicians that will. That is the brutal truth of democracy.

Do we blindly support the law?

Good question. I would say that laws that treat people differently depending on what DNA they have should not be supported. Treaties are artifacts of times when racism was normal - natives did not have the same rights as british settlers in colonial times so the myriad of 'different rights' set out in treaties made some sense. Today native Canadian have all of the rights as other Canadian but demand more because of these archaic treaties. Canadians should blockade Native reservations and demand and end to all discrimatory laws. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

Most Canadians want treaties honoured but only if it is not going to cost them anything. If it is gets too expensive Canadians will tell their politicians to screw the treaties.

The politicians know what they are doing - if they don't 'limit the liability of the crown' they will be replaced by politicians that will. That is the brutal truth of democracy.

I can appreciate your humour ... but of course the reality is that most Canadians know it is going to cost us something. Canadians are not know for being "brutal", though our politics may be.

Good question. I would say that laws that treat people differently depending on what DNA they have should not be supported.

Are you saying no one should have the right to inherit property through family?

Treaties are artifacts of times when racism was normal - natives did not have the same rights as british settlers in colonial times so the myriad of 'different rights' set out in treaties made some sense.

The 'rights' set out in Treaties are those of the settlers on designated land.

Today native Canadian have all of the rights as other Canadian

No they don't. Some Human Rights are suspended via the Indian Act.

but demand more because of these archaic treaties.

Those "archaic treaties" define Canada. We need to honour or renegotiate. We can hardly dispense with the treaties that define our borders and other aspects of Canada, and became incorporated into the BNA ACT and the Constitution.

Canadians should blockade Native reservations

Armed Canadian OPP are blockading three Indigenous Territories.

What is that accomplishing for us?

Is that likely to keep spreading and become the norm?

I think that is why we need to have this conversation.

and demand and end to all discrimatory laws.

Which laws in particular?

The Constitution?

"Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are hereby recognized and affirmed"

How? ... oh right ... you are going to blockade some Indigenous communities and ... what ? ... screech at them? ... hold them at gunpoint? deny them access to food and water? ... What? ... until they change OUR Canadian Constitution?

Well ... obviously you are new to activism ... we need to talk about some other possibilities.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

but of course the reality is that most Canadians know it is going to cost us something.

The question is how much. Add up the demands of various native groups and you find the cost would be in the trillions. There is no way those demands will ever be met. Politicians know this so they try to negotiate reasonable settlements.

Are you saying no one should have the right to inherit property through family?

Not unless they have have paid capital gains taxes and probate fees each time it is transferred between generations.

We need to honour or renegotiate.

Every Canadian has a maximum price they would be willing to pay to settle old treaties politely. For some people the price is higher than others, however, all people have a price at which they would say screw the treaties and change the constitution if necessary.

For the majority of a people the price much much lower than what native groups currently demand. Politicians try to avoid conflict through endless negotiations. Unfortunately, too many natives have bought the myth that their rights are absolute and that they have no need to negotiate. This will inevitably lead to nasty show down.

"Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are hereby recognized and affirmed"

That same document clearly indicates that those provisions can be removed in a future constitutional amendment provided the steps specified in the amending formula are followed. Aboriginal leaders did not get a veto in 1982 even though they wanted one because the people who wrote the document recognized that times change and things that sounded reasonable today may make no sense in the future. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

The question is how much. Add up the demands of various native groups and you find the cost would be in the trillions. There is no way those demands will ever be met. Politicians know this so they try to negotiate reasonable settlements.

Essentially yes ... I would argue there is more interest in maintaining the taxpayer funded "land claims industry of Canada" than in settling reasonably.

Not unless they have have paid capital gains taxes and probate fees each time it is transferred between generations.

I conclude it is acceptable in your ideal Canada for people to inherit property rights by DNA, then. Thank you.

Every Canadian has a maximum price they would be willing to pay to settle old treaties politely. For some people the price is higher than others, however, all people have a price at which they would say screw the treaties and change the constitution if necessary.

For the majority of a people the price much much lower than what native groups currently demand. Politicians try to avoid conflict through endless negotiations. Unfortunately, too many natives have bought the myth that their rights are absolute and that they have no need to negotiate. This will inevitably lead to nasty show down.

Maybe so ... but those are not the immediate issues.

The immediate blockade issues are environmental ... a uranium mine (Sharbot Lake) ... clearcutting (Grassy Narrows) ... greenfield sprawl development (Caledonia).

That same document clearly indicates that those provisions can be removed in a future constitutional amendment provided the steps specified in the amending formula are followed. Aboriginal leaders did not get a veto in 1982 even though they wanted one because the people who wrote the document recognized that times change and things that make no sense today may make no sense in the future.

Absolutely, so we accept "existing aboriginal rights are recognized and confirmed" ... is the law ... with those provisions ... but to be implemented all the same ... DEPENDING OF COURSE ON THE COST and the "balance of convenience" I believe it is that the SCoC uses ... We will all still be here ... etcetc but ...

RIGHT NOW ...

Do we want armed police defending the borders of territories

against others who wish to defend that land

against environmental incursion

that was approved by our governments?

Do we have any better ideas ... for these situations right now?

People are listening.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

I conclude it is acceptable in your ideal Canada for people to inherit property rights by DNA, then. Thank you

Not at all. I said people who own property can give it to whoever they want after paying applicable taxes. I did not say *rights* could be inherited. There is a huge difference. Aboriginals are the only group that are allowed to inherit rights that others do not have - that is textbook racism that would be denounced if beneficiaries were white. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[geoffrey]

We gave up on hereditary privledge and rights when we decided to have an appointed Senate rather than adopt the British model. Then we turned around and gave a group of people hereditary privledge anyways. Silly silly silly.

[jennie]

Not at all. I said people who own property can give it to whoever they want after paying applicable taxes. I did not say *rights* could be inherited. There is a huge difference. Aboriginals are the only group that are allowed to inherit rights that others do not have - that is textbook racism that would be denounced if beneficiaries were white.

That is the point ... there are no aboriginal rights that are not just basic human rights ... that WE ALREADY HAVE

... inherited property and other financial interests, freedom of speech, religion, culture ... etc etc ... they are all rights that we all have.

That is the whole point.

They have these rights ... that we all have ... but theirs have not been implemented yet in Canada.

We all know the governments have been "working on it".

Enough?

[jennie]

We gave up on hereditary privledge and rights when we decided to have an appointed Senate rather than adopt the British model. Then we turned around and gave a group of people hereditary privledge anyways. Silly silly silly.

Do you appreciate your right to inherit land and other property?

Are you willing to give it up?

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

there are no aboriginal rights that are not just basic human rights

No they are not. They are these bizarre collective rights that have no other equivalent. For example, the government decided that hunting with lights at night was dangerous and banned the activity. Aboriginals were granted the right to do this. IOW - aboriginals are granted the right to ignore laws that everyone else must follow. This is not a basic human right - it is special status that is morally equivalent to the rights demanded by the feudal lords in Europe.

Aboriginal title is another bizarre communal right that only aboriginals are granted. From http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/Cur...inal-Rights.php

In essence, Aboriginal title is a property right that goes much further than aboriginal rights of usage. It is like ordinary land ownership and affords many of the same privileges (e.g. the right to exclude others, extract resources, etc). But it is also unique in that it is a communal right, meaning that an individual cannot hold aboriginal title. Moreover, Delgamuukw states that although aboriginal title gives a right to exclusive use and occupation of land, it must be used in a way that is compatible with its traditional purpose and uses.[22] Aboriginal title is also unique in that it has the additional protection of being a constitutional right, and can only be sold to the federal government.[23]

In other words, Aboriginal rights are not like other rights - they are unique to Aboriginals and confer rights to a collective identified by DNA. These rights are racist and have no place in a democratic egalitarian society. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[Visionseeker]

Most Canadians want laws obeyed, treaties and agreements honoured, etc. ... in principle.

Can we look at what those are? Just look at the Canadian perspective ... what are the Canadian laws that we, as Canadians, are currently expected to uphold and implement?

What are we as Canadians being asked to support?

Is it supportable?

What can we support?

Do we blindly support the law?

Are we expected to?

Do we expect our governments to?

Do they? If not why not?

If not, what is our role?

This is not an idle exercise. There are currently at least three blockades in Ontario with armed police standing by.

I think we have to ask ourselves whether there is a better way.

I am asking you to help talk about this, think about this ...

Do we want a better way to resolve land disputes?

I think most Canadians do.

That's why I think it is worth discussing ... because if there ever was a time for our input, it is now.

Right, first off, honour treaties. Where this is now improbable due to mass squatting and illegal seizures, provide adequate compensation and then turn your attention towards negotiating a new understanding to replace the Indian Act.

In terms of honouring treaties, I think people need to understand that our historical relationship with First Nations was not characterized by conquest, but rather one of alliance in some cases and segregation in others. Each type precipitated the drafting of legally binding contracts between the Crown and the Nation that came to agree to their terms. They are legally entrenched rights to land that must be respected if property for anyone in this country is to mean anything. If governments can continue to ignore the rightful claims of aboriginals because of political convenience, what protection does any Canadian have from political convenience usurping their own "owned" piece of paradise?

In this vein, it has to be recognized that many claims are beyond full rehabilitation as the land in question is now well occupied. In such instances, appropriate restitutions MUST be negotiated at fair value. These were thefts, and a law abiding society cannot stand to retain its claim to rights when it continuously ignores its own principles of justice. Appropriation without compensation is simply theft and constitutes an abrogation of property rights of all.

If the Government of Canada should accept and achieve these two outcomes, replacing the Indian Act would be a walk in the park.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Visionseeker

[Riverwind]

In such instances, appropriate restitutions MUST be negotiated at fair value.

Fair value for the land when? At the time of the alleged theft when it was unoccupied or today when the development on it has dramatically increased its value? There is no universal standard for 'fair value' so your comment is virtually meaningless.

Appropriation without compensation is simply theft and constitutes an abrogation of property rights of all.

The government has a duty to balance the need to address past injustices with the needs of today. This will likely mean that aboriginal groups can expect some compensation but it is not going to have much connection to the value of the land today. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[Visionseeker]

Fair value for the land when? At the time of the alleged theft when it was unoccupied or today when the development on it has dramatically increased its value? There is no universal standard for 'fair value' so your comment is virtually meaningless.

Fair value is what is successfully negotiated between the parties. What is meaningless is your suggestion that such thefts are "alleged". The docket, which had been prohibited to aboriginal claims until the 60s, has more than acknowledged that such thefts occurred. The standard of justice applies and will be applied whether or not you accept its universality.

The government has a duty to balance the need to address past injustices with the needs of today. This will likely mean that aboriginal groups can expect some compensation but it is not going to have much connection to the value of the land today.

No, the government has a responsibility to live up to its negotiated commitments. I think you confuse finite redress of a dying few (i.e. the Head Tax) with the living redress owed to the ever growing segment of society. One group is content with what you will give them, the other expects what they are owed (and are willing to make life difficult until they get it).

[Riverwind]

I think you confuse finite redress of a dying few (i.e. the Head Tax) with the living redress owed to the ever growing segment of society. One group is content with what you will give them, the other expects what they are owed (and are willing to make life difficult until they get it).

There is no difference between compensating for thefts that may have occurred before confederation and compensating people for other injustices. In both cases the government imposes a burden upon people who not responsible for the wrong by collecting taxes to pay the settlements. For this reason the government has a right to limit compensation to whatever it feels is reasonable. Aboriginal agitators can put up as many blockade as they want however they will never get the settlement they want if they set their expectations too high. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[geoffrey]

Do you appreciate your right to inherit land and other property?

Are you willing to give it up?

That's completely different. That's willful transfer of property. What your proposing is that descendants of certain people should always be privledged before the law, just because of their DNA... that goes against the democratic principle that we are all equal before the law.

We should extend property rights to Indians, but only if they give up all the other rights they have as such. In fact, they can already do that, it's called giving up your status.

[Visionseeker]

There is no difference between compensating for thefts that may have occurred before confederation and compensating people for other injustices. In both cases the government imposes a burden upon people who not responsible for the wrong by collecting taxes to pay the settlements. For this reason the government has a right to limit compensation to whatever it feels is reasonable. Aboriginal adjitators can put up as many blockade as they want however they will never get the settlement they want if they set their expectations too high.

Before Confederation or after, same Crown, same obligations.

You seem to think that the harm in question was performed in the past. Well, as far as land claims are concerned, they continue to be performed to this day. You also seem to hold that the tax payer calls the shots (as they supposedly have for some time) and I say that they will pay whatever bill is negotiated (which will be quite high in some cases) because the government knows that what they are dealing with are property rights; rights that know no colour.

It's not about expectations, it’s about entitlement. If they are not entitled to theirs, how are you entitled to yours?

[geoffrey]

Or the majority can just refuse. Then what.

[Visionseeker]

Or the majority can just refuse. Then what.

How quaint.

And how do you suppose they would refuse? And what would they refuse in the face of? Highways blocked, reeking havoc on their commutes? Railway lines blocked or dug-up for their trespass? Or maybe international pressure brought to bare against the persistence of Canadian apartheid?

No, the plurality already knows who holds the weaker hand. It won’t take much to get a majority to know thereafter.

[jennie]

How quaint.

And how do you suppose they would refuse? And what would they refuse in the face of? Highways blocked, reeking havoc on their commutes? Railway lines blocked or dug-up for their trespass? Or maybe international pressure brought to bare against the persistence of Canadian apartheid?

No, the plurality already knows who holds the weaker hand. It won’t take much to get a majority to know thereafter.

geoffrey's opinion does NOT represent the majority ... 70% + want the treaties honoured.

[Riverwind]

And how do you suppose they would refuse? And what would they refuse in the face of? Highways blocked, reeking havoc on their commutes? Railway lines blocked or dug-up for their trespass? Or maybe international pressure brought to bare against the persistence of Canadian apartheid?

A simple refusal is not necessary. The government can make a good faith attempt to negotiate a reasonable compromise. If this compromise is refused the native groups can go to court which will take years. When the SCC looks at the case and if it agrees it has merit (natives could lose everything at this point) it will take into account the need to balance the rights of current tax payers and will likely side with the government if the government had made a good faith attempt at negotiation.

At this point in time the native groups would be forced to accept the government's offer and further violence and lawlessness would get them no where.

In fact all of the lawlessness today strengthens the government's hand when these cases go to court because the government will be the only party that demonstrated respect for the law.

Native's restort to violance and blockades because they hope to win by extortion what they could not win in court.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[geoffrey]

And how do you suppose they would refuse? And what would they refuse in the face of?

By electing parties unwilling to deal with those that constantly try to blackmail and pressure us into settling claims that should not be settled.

Highways blocked, reeking havoc on their commutes? Railway lines blocked or dug-up for their trespass?

Since when can Indians at large just bring the law into their own hands? The police could easily arrest them all and have them charged for any such acts. They don't own the land, they have no title that says anything of such. This is a civilized country. We don't play games based on spiritual traditional land and such crap. It's tresspassing if you can prove legal ownership. Which you can't. The buck stops with the Crown, and with a Constitutional admendment, it would.

One thing you forget to consider, there is alot more 'Canadian's' than 'Indians'. How long of a blockade do you think people would tolerate before they just dealt with the matter straight up? There is a reason why Alberta Indians don't try stunts like they do in Ontario... it wouldn't last all of an hour. Ontarians would eventually reach that point as well.

Or maybe international pressure brought to bare against the persistence of Canadian apartheid?

I know! The outrage! All those free things and the highest rate of individual and collective transfers of Federal dollars certainly seems like brutal oppression!

No, the plurality already knows who holds the weaker hand. It won’t take much to get a majority to know thereafter.

If we cut off all privledge tomorrow and made all Indians equal to the rest of Canadians, then there isn't much left for them to do, now is there?

[Riverwind]

geoffrey's opinion does NOT represent the majority ... 70% + want the treaties honoured.

Such a poll is meaningless unless it makes it clear that settling treaties would cost money. How many people would want treaties honoured if it meant a 10% GST? I am guessing it would but much much less than 70%.

[jennie]

There is no difference between compensating for thefts that may have occurred before confederation and compensating people for other injustices. In both cases the government imposes a burden upon people who not responsible for the wrong by collecting taxes to pay the settlements. For this reason the government has a right to limit compensation to whatever it feels is reasonable. Aboriginal adjitators can put up as many blockade as they want however they will never get the settlement they want if they set their expectations too high.

Before Confederation or after, same Crown, same obligations.

You seem to think that the harm in question was performed in the past. Well, as far as land claims are concerned, they continue to be performed to this day. You also seem to hold that the tax payer calls the shots (as they supposedly have for some time) and I say that they will pay whatever bill is negotiated (which will be quite high in some cases) because the government knows that what they are dealing with are property rights; rights that know no colour.

It's not about expectations, it’s about entitlement. If they are not entitled to theirs, how are you entitled to yours?

I don't see riverwind saying there is no entitlement to compensation. She wants to know what the limit is I guess, which we can't know.

Canadian taxpayers sometimes need to be reminded that we all benefit from the land and its resources, and that the land being blockaded is being defended from environmental destruction in all three cases ... Sharbot Lake ... Grassy Narrows ... Caledonia ... all ENVIRONMENTAL issues needing IMMEDIATE solutions.

And our governments are not providing any real solutions. All they are providing is armed police.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

That's completely different. That's willful transfer of property. What your proposing is that descendants of certain people should always be privledged before the law, just because of their DNA... that goes against the democratic principle that we are all equal before the law.

Willful transfer of property is exactly what it is about. There is no 'DNA privilege' beyond the right of inheritance that we all have.

We should extend property rights to Indians, but only if they give up all the other rights they have as such. In fact, they can already do that, it's called giving up your status.

How does that work? Are status 'Indians' not already citizens?

[Riverwind]

There is no 'DNA privilege' beyond the right of inheritance that we all have.

You must have missed my post. I gave too examples of aboriginal rights that demonstrate why they are completely different from the normal right of inheritance.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=248137

Can you give any example where someone other than an Aborignal inherits the right to ignore certain laws?

Can you give any example of 'collectives' other than aboriginals that inherit constitutionally protected rights to land?

Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind