Occupations, barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issue

[jennie]

No lets say we were to ask which of you are Canadian and make them decide, so that we can ensure we don't have non-citizens participating in our elections. And then we can move on to denying them medicare. And they can be healed with tobacco smoke. Canadian medicare for Canadians. Medicine men for the rest.

The alternative being sovereignty?

With all of Canada's debts paid, land repatriated, etc ... you mean?

You have to spell out the alternative. A person has a right to a nationality.

[jbg]

I'm no lawyer, but the only way I can see $1 billion in damages is if the entire band is emotionally distraught and unable to work.

And what were they emotionally distraught about before uranium mining?

[jennie]

And what were they emotionally distraught about before uranium mining?

This is a good background article...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ca...ae-d428356b1bbb

Curious, though. The NP only vaguely alludes to the fact that the local landowners are also protesting.

http://lists.miningwatch.ca/pipermail/news...uly/001440.html

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

I'm no lawyer, but the only way I can see $1 billion in damages is if the entire band is emotionally distraught and unable to work.

I don't see that as being very hard to arrange.

Edited September 20, 2007 by ScottSA

[ScottSA]

I expect it has to do with the damage to the land for allowing drilling for uranium without consent. Of course then there is also the damage from testing bombs without consent. The entire area is radioactive.

So it would be quite alright to drill, test bombs, and irradiate the land once cashola...oops..."consent" is achieved?

[jennie]

So it would be quite alright to drill, test bombs, and irradiate the land once cashola...oops..."consent" is achieved?

I don't believe that is their plan, no. Their plan is to shut down the operation entirely in this case.

[kimmy]

a $1-billion lawsuit

I gather the Algonquins are now getting their legal advice from Dr Evil?

-k

[jennie]

I gather the Algonquins are now getting their legal advice from Dr Evil?

-k

Really? I heard he was too busy working for the governments!

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[AngusThermopyle]

I do believe it all boils down to the Natives having a desire to show that they are quite adept at "wealth extraction".

See, we aren't the only ones who know how to use the land for wealth. Those environmentally friendly natives have come up with their own form of "mining".

[jbg]

I don't believe that is their plan, no. Their plan is to shut down the operation entirely in this case.

What a constructive, productive plan?

[AngusThermopyle]

What a constructive, productive plan?

Seems to be right in line with the usual action plan employed in such cases. why work the resources when you can sue for a billion?

[AngusThermopyle]

The alternative being sovereignty?

Ahhh, once again "pretend sovereignty" enters the issue.

[M.Dancer]

Some may vote, some don't vote.

Some are traditional, some aren't.

There isn't one answer.

There is but you choose to avoid it becasue you are being dishonest.

There are many Canadians who do not vote, they choose not to. But they are still canadian.

There are freeman with their tinfoilhat thinking who claim not to be subject to any laws, but they are.

And likewise, indiginous Canadains are citizens, even if tey find it more convient not to be when breaking the law.

Luckily the justice system doesn't care with tinfoil hat arguments.

[M.Dancer]

How about "adverse possession"?

As coincidence will have it, my neighbour is making that case against our property. Unfortunately her oral history is faulty and we have a survey accompanied by an affidavid.............10 years of occupation would be all she needed....she can only prove 7.

[M.Dancer]

Do you mean Palestinians?

Are Celts indigenous in Spain? How interesting!

Are they continuously resident there?

You might want to ask for a Snorkle.........

Look up celtiberia at Google U

[jennie]

There is but you choose to avoid it becasue you are being dishonest.

There are many Canadians who do not vote, they choose not to. But they are still canadian.

There are freeman with their tinfoilhat thinking who claim not to be subject to any laws, but they are.

And likewise, indiginous Canadains are citizens, even if tey find it more convient not to be when breaking the law.

Luckily the justice system doesn't care with tinfoil hat arguments.

Every human being has a right to freely choose their nationality. A nationality cannot be forced on people.

[Rue]

Andalusia has a lot of bagpipers. Celts lived all through Europe. They did not always live there or in any one place but neither did the natives nor most people on the globe, as JBG points out. What makes natives indigenous. From what I understand they moved to America as well. They are no more native than I am. Not a single one of them. I was born here.

Before the expulsion of the Acadians, the peaceful neutral Acadians paid off some peaceful Micmac to kill men, women and children in the settlement at Dartmouth. Reparations for their descendants please?

Now back to the real question, Jennie. How can we determine and sort out which natives are Canadian and which ones aren't so that we won't have non-Canadians voting in our elections?

In law its not that native peoples are more indigenous than you. What has happened though is there is a hierarchy of laws though. What we are saying is the native peoples were a collective with an existing framework of laws that existed BEFORE the ones the British and French brought.

The legal dispute is not about natives being more native. Not at all. It is simply put the fact that when the British decided to take it upon themselves to give ownership to the land to the King of England, the treaties that this King and his heirs signed with the native peoples did not simply confer absolute ownership of the entire land to the King-on the contrary it recognized the collective rights of the aboriginal peoples to the land and set up a parallel legal system not to take away aboriginal rights but to run parallel with them.

The legal arguements the native peoples make are not about stating they are more Canadian or more anything-what they are stating and it is a legal as well as historic fact, is that their legal system of collective rights preceded the ones we now try enforce, and as a condition for the creation of our country we must certainly agreed in numerous treaties to recognize these collective rights preceded our laws and would continue after confederation as well.

It is interesting to ask how does one define an aboriginal because the federal government took it upon itself yet again to create a law only this time telling aboriginals how they MUST define themselves.

It is absurd because its like passing a law telling me as a Jew how I will define myself as a Jew. Last time I looked in Israel that debate is still going on and will never end.

Aboriginals and their nations have many ways to define their collective identity and links to their past, present and future heritage. The problem is it is not linear and no it is not based on British laws we are used to in inheritancy laws with wills and estates. It is far more fluid and complex then that for it deals with the definition of who one is by what he forms a relationship to other then himself or herself. Its a holistic definition not a seperatist one. In our laws, we define by seperating and distinguishing something and defining it by explaining what makes it different.

In aboriginal conceptualization of identity its defined by explaining what it forms part of-so you want a simple formula like the one they have tried to shove down their throat in Bil 31 of course it won't work-it completely ignores the reality of what it means to be aboriginal and is all about how we non natives want to define them.

I would say in purely simple easy to understand terms someone native has a connection to a way of life that preceded the current life. Too airy fairy? Well then would you like people to have to take a test to prove they are native? Should we blood test everyone for their dna or should we come up with a more practical and fair legal solution whereby it can be defined as lineage through either the mother or father back to the peoples who preceded the Eurpeans and others.

Native peoples define it as a spiritual connection and yet we non natives are obsessed in turning that into a genetic defintiion. Its no different then when someone asks me what makes you a Jew and I say, depends who you ask, some feel its because my mother is Jewish and jews define their Jewishness by whether their mother was a Jew or not. But so what/ what the people who convert or whose mothers were not Jewish but there father was? What about me? I go to Israel and I am not considered Jewish by the Rabbincial courts because some old smelly guy with a beard and a bad hair cut and a penchant for wearing black clothes tells me I need to do certain rituals to be able to call myself one. Uh yah. This guy is going to tell me I am not Jewish? To me being Jewish is not a religious definition, its partially cultural, partially spiritual, partially biological and partially socio-political. To me what really makes me Jewish is my collective link to the identity and values all Jews share. Yah good luck defining that in a law.

How about instead of imposing laws on aboriginals to tell them how to define themselves we let them just once explain to us what it means and then codify that as a guideline but not an absolute limitation.

And lest you think everyone is scrambling to be native because tis so great- I will give you a hint- that aint happening.

Collective Rights can and do fade away when the people they are attached to fade away-that can happen naturally or by enforced genocide or environmental catastrophe. Ideally we hope it only happens with the first category and peacefuly and gracefully in due time and as it fades, so to does a new set of collective rights come about to attach to a new natural order of things.

These collective rights are as simple as the notion of flowing water. You can let it flow naturally and form its own shape, or you can try block it and dredge it and force a shape on it -the point is water will always go back and follow the path it originally intended. Law or collective rights which attach to the life elements of a people or collective of people is no different.

[Rue]

There is but you choose to avoid it becasue you are being dishonest.

There are many Canadians who do not vote, they choose not to. But they are still canadian.

There are freeman with their tinfoilhat thinking who claim not to be subject to any laws, but they are.

And likewise, indiginous Canadains are citizens, even if tey find it more convient not to be when breaking the law.

Luckily the justice system doesn't care with tinfoil hat arguments.

She is not being dishonest. Don't say that. I have tried to explain it another way for you. I am trying hard. some of the questions you ask are hard to explain but I am trying. She is not a liar. She is talking about some very honourable principles based on concepts far more fluid and complex then tinfoil hats. The problem is when you try explain colour to a blind man, its hard to find the words.

[Rue]

As coincidence will have it, my neighbour is making that case against our property. Unfortunately her oral history is faulty and we have a survey accompanied by an affidavid.............10 years of occupation would be all she needed....she can only prove 7.

Again with due respect some of us would argue it is quite accurate. As for your arbitrary designation of 10 years, the law as to use and ownership of land is not that easily defined and in this case most certainly would not be defined that way because of the application of other laws other then the one you refer to.

[Rue]

No lets say we were to ask which of you are Canadian and make them decide, so that we can ensure we don't have non-citizens participating in our elections. And then we can move on to denying them medicare. And they can be healed with tobacco smoke. Canadian medicare for Canadians. Medicine men for the rest.

1-it is possible for there two be compatible legal regimes so that aboriginals to have the right to opt out or in-there is numerous precedent for legal systems that allow opting out and in

2-medicare is not predicated on whether you wish to vote or not

3-your comments mix up the legal concepts of entitlement to social and medical benefits, voting, citizenship and make them seem all the same when they are not

4-your description of healing with tobacco smoke is inaccurate

5-in Ontario we have now a new set of health laws that allows people to choose what system of healing they wish use-medicare does not pay for all these treatments, only some based on financial reasons-for you to suggest medicare pays for all non native medical treatments as you have inferred is not true-it does not for example pay for physiotherapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy and massage therapy or cosmetic surgery or eye exams or psychological services not conducted by a psychiatrist

6-someone can be Canadian and believe in the efficacy of native medical approaches

7-defining one's citizenship by the treatment they choose is absurd, what next- do we define Canadians as being Canadian because they engage in colonic irrigations?

[AngusThermopyle]

Every human being has a right to freely choose their nationality.

Nonsense. I may choose to be Botswanan but if they do not grant me citizenship then I most certainly will not be Botswanan no matter how stridently I "choose" to be so.

[kengs333]

Six Nations are very good managers. Always have been, I believe.

Where is that may I ask?

Good managers at what? Most could neither read nor writer.

[jefferiah]

2-medicare is not predicated on whether you wish to vote or not

I never said it was, I said Canadian medicare for Canadians. Jennie claims natives are non-Canadians. I never said anyone had to vote, I said if someone is non-Canadian then they should not be allowed to vote.

When it suits her purpose she uses the argument that they have their own nationality and never wanted to be Canadian. But when asked about voting she says well maybe some will vote and some won't. Would this be a good argument for letting Albanians vote in our elections---the fact that maybe some of them won't vote? And I am not basing the medicare argument on voting, but on whether someone is Canadian or not.

Edited September 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

Nonsense. I may choose to be Botswanan but if they do not grant me citizenship then I most certainly will not be Botswanan no matter how stridently I "choose" to be so.

Let me be clearer: Some traditional Indigenous Peoples do not choose to be Canadian and they cannot be forced.

[jefferiah]

6-someone can be Canadian and believe in the efficacy of native medical approaches

Here you also got my parallel backasswards. I never said being Canadian means you can't believe in folk medecine. I said not being Canadian takes away your entitlement to the medicare system.