Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[ScottSA]

I remember several hooplas over kids not being removed from Indian homes before they were killed by drunk uncles and whatnot. Apparently that was Whitey's fault too. Indians really have to clean up their own acts and stop blaming Bwana for all the problems. When you're sitting out in the bush drinking lysol while your kids are out back sniffing gasoline because they can't afford crack, that's a problem. Indians have to own it and deal with it. Taking over Bwana's land on some spurious claim of once having owned it so you can finance an alcoholism problem is no way to live life.

[Posit]

I remember several hooplas over kids not being removed from Indian homes before they were killed by drunk uncles and whatnot. Apparently that was Whitey's fault too. Indians really have to clean up their own acts and stop blaming Bwana for all the problems. When you're sitting out in the bush drinking lysol while your kids are out back sniffing gasoline because they can't afford crack, that's a problem. Indians have to own it and deal with it. Taking over Bwana's land on some spurious claim of once having owned it so you can finance an alcoholism problem is no way to live life.

The rate of substance abuse on reserve is comparable to that in mainstream society. The fact is that because were are an affluent society, and because judges, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have more substance abusers in their ranks than natives do, we are successful at hiding that fact.

While there are some cases where non-removal allowed harm to a child, it would statistically be consistent with what happens in our communties. Perhaps the problem lies in that since we cannot fix our own problems we should stop insisting that they solve theirs first.

[Riverwind]

The rate of substance abuse on reserve is comparable to that in mainstream society. The fact is that because were are an affluent society, and because judges, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have more substance abusers in their ranks than natives do, we are successful at hiding that fact.

My jaw dropped when I read this. Do you just make this stuff up yourself or does someone else do it for you?

Some Statistics.... http://www.caicw.org/canada/index.html

In Manitoba in 1995, a large survey was conducted with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adolescents. The Aboriginal group had consistently higher usage rates for marijuana, non-medical tranquilizers, non-medical barbiturates, LSD, PCP, other hallucinogens and crack. For both LSD and marijuana, the four-year Aboriginal average utilization was over three times higher than the corresponding non- Aboriginal utilization.

- In 1996, the Northwest Territories Health Promotion Survey reported heavy drinking in 33.0% of Aboriginal persons as compared to 16.7% in the non-Aboriginal population. This same survey reported use of marijuana or hash by Aboriginal persons was 27.3%, compared with 10.8% for non-Aboriginal persons.

- The 1996 NWT survey also found the percentage of Aboriginal people who had used solvents was 19.0% (24 times the national rate) compared to 1.7% among non-Aboriginal people.

[ScottSA]

The rate of substance abuse on reserve is comparable to that in mainstream society.

Pure mush. You know it and I know it. Of course it's "comparible." We can "compare" the deaths from the Black Plague in 1383 to the deaths from hangnails in 1997, but if we did, we'd find they are not very comparable. It's just foolish to try to maintain these myths in the face of reality. It might work teaching a 6th grade class not to abide by "stereotypes," but don't try to flog them out here in the real world. You'll just get laughed at.

[Posit]

My jaw dropped when I read this. Do you just make this stuff up yourself or does someone else do it for you?

Some Statistics.... http://www.caicw.org/canada/index.html

Neither. It comes from AA statistics, research from the US, as well as my own research. The non-native statistics are under reported because mostly they are more readily keep secret. They even have their own closed AA groups to protect their identities. You'ld be surprised who goes to daily meetings.....some very prominent people.....

40% doctors have obsessive compulsive disorder and the majority self-medicate using mood-altering substances. I've mentioned before that my background is in substance abuse treatment and counseling. That includes remote native communities. What we also do not often see in the mainstream (including professional substance abusers) are the high rate of substance abuse that exists in the Armed Forces, work camps and those currently in recovery. There is a one in three chance that one of your co-workers has (or has had) a substance abuse problem.

[ScottSA]

40% doctors have obsessive compulsive disorder and the majority self-medicate using mood-altering substances.

40% of doctors aren't down by the river blowing lysol, or sleeping in doorways or watching their kids sniff gasoline. Using a "mind-altering drug" is so broad a definition as to include everything from cups of coffee to crack, with a healthy dose of prescription drugs thrown in. Trying to claim that substance abuse is the same across the board is just a howler...

[Riverwind]

You claimed that the rate of substance abuse for natives on "reserves" is the same as the rest of the population. That statement is clearly false. If it was true then there would be no need for this endless hand wringing about the plight of natives in the country. Please provide me with the stats to back up your claim so I can send them to my MP and show him how we have all been duped by the indian victim industry.

The non-native statistics are under reported because mostly they are more readily keep secret.

They are kept secret because the culture they in does not tolerate public drunkenness. It has nothing to wealth. But I do agree that addiction is something that affects all members of society. I would not be surprised to find out that there is a closed AA meeting in the Parliment Buildings.

There is a one in three chance that one of your co-workers has (or has had) a substance abuse problem.

And the majority of those people were probably heavy drinkers in college where drinking was social norm. As soon as they left the college culture they sobered up without any special treatment. They may have technically had a 'substance abuse problem' measured by the amount of alcohol consumed but that does not make them recovering addicts. Addicts are people who cannot stop using the substance even when it is socially inappropriate or even if its use causes serious harm to their life and the life of people around them. Edited September 18, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

Sorry Posit, I find that once again you have answered with no answer at all. So once again I will ask a question you must have overlooked.

If these mass graves exist, and we are to believe what you say, that they contain at least 50,000 children's bodies, why have none been exhumed yet?

If the last school closed in 88, why in 19 years has no one exhumed one mass grave? Out of approx 25,000,000 + people not one has thought to make this public?

If a mass grave of children was discovered I must have missed it. I certainly cant recall hearing about it. If one had been uncovered then more would naturally follow I would think.

I really want to know how this could be, I do hope you can explain it to me.

[jennie]

Sorry Posit, I find that once again you have answered with no answer at all. So once again I will ask a question you must have overlooked.

If these mass graves exist, and we are to believe what you say, that they contain at least 50,000 children's bodies, why have none been exhumed yet?

If the last school closed in 88, why in 19 years has no one exhumed one mass grave? Out of approx 25,000,000 + people not one has thought to make this public?

If a mass grave of children was discovered I must have missed it. I certainly cant recall hearing about it. If one had been uncovered then more would naturally follow I would think.

I really want to know how this could be, I do hope you can explain it to me.

The government is only now listening to the demands because the question was finally raised in the commons and by media. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is looking into any records of deaths in the schools, hopefully to see if their burial places can be identified.

Children died in the schools, over decades and decades. There are graveyards. The issue is can they identify the children in those graves. They can't just go digging them up without knowing who they should go home with.

And indications or records of how they died will be searched for as well.

As for modern genocide, the government approves resource extraction operations knowing that the operations will destroy natural habitat and poison the water, destroying traditional aboriginal ways of life with no payback, and in some cases taking a horrendous toll on their lives.

Clearcut defiance

The Ojibway of Grassy Narrows, Ontario, stand up to Montreal-based pulp and paper monolith Abitibi-Consolidated

by KEN HECHTMAN

Looking at dead forests is like looking at dead people. Photographs just don't have the same impact as the real thing. There are dozens of clearcuts in the treaty lands around the northern Ontario Ojibway community of Grassy Narrows, but there's one they call "the clearcut." It's 166 square kilometres of moonscape, bigger than all of downtown Montreal and pockmarked with burn sites.

Native activist Lucille McKenzie explains what those are. "After the loggers finish cutting, they won't let us pick up the scrap wood to heat our houses, not unless we buy it from Abitibi-Consolidated. We won't pay Abitibi for our own wood so they burn it all here on the site."

As bad as the land looks, Abitibi isn't finished here yet. Trapper Don Billard explains what comes next. "The year after they cut, they come back and plough the land up, getting rid of all the other plants. The year after, they spray Vision (Monsanto's new trade name for glyphosate, formerly known as Roundup) from the air to make sure nothing ever grows back." (This is done to ensure a monoculture of trees they can later harvest.)

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/200...2703/news3.html

After ignoring their blockade for five years, the province finally agreed to send some Ministry people to talk to them this week.

Health Canada muzzles oilsands whistleblower

AB physician sounded cancer alarm, slapped with College complaint

By Peter Woodford

Elevated cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan support Dr O'Connor's claim

From Fort Chipewyan Health Data Analysis by Alberta Health & Wellness and Alberta Cancer Board, April 2006

A northern Alberta physician who publicly aired concerns over carcinogenic pollution from the massive oilsands development is being investigated by the province's College of Physicians and Surgeons. The complaint against him comes from none other than Health Canada, which claims the physician caused "undue alarm."

The doc — widely held to be Dr John O'Connor of Fort Chipewyan — says he's got a hunch the copious amounts of arsenic dumped into the water by the project might explain why so many of his mostly aboriginal patients are presenting with cancer — including rarer forms like cholangiocarcinoma (bile duct cancer).

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/is...olitics1_6.html

Update on this ... it is the uranium mine dumping into Lake Athabasca further north that causes the cancer. Dr. O'Connor was cleared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and his work was verified. There is a serious industrial disease killing people in Fort Chippewyan, and Health Canada tried to cover it up.

It is still unlikely that much will be done by the government.

They just ignore.

One could argue that these are 'accidents'.

Strange that we have a 500 year history of such 'accidents'.

Edited September 18, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

What is even stranger is that the same kind of thinking that caused residential schools is present in these people's everyday thinking. I wonder how many of the younger ones are lining up in the priesthood looking to get close to children?

Edited September 18, 2007 by Posit

[AngusThermopyle]

There are graveyards.

I suppose a graveyard could be considered a mass grave of a sort. How many bodies are in these graveyards? If it were thousands why has no one seen fit to exhume these graves so far and get an accurate count? Is it because no one, including Natives, is interested enough to do it? I find that rather hard to believe.

What is even stranger is that the same kind of thinking that caused residential schools is present in these people's everyday thinking. I wonder how many of the younger ones are lining up in the priesthood looking to get close to children?

This is not even in the realm of speculation. It's just pure opinion with no basis in fact, inspired by what would appear to be nothing more than malice and ill will.

[Posit]

I suppose a graveyard could be considered a mass grave of a sort. How many bodies are in these graveyards? If it were thousands why has no one seen fit to exhume these graves so far and get an accurate count? Is it because no one, including Natives, is interested enough to do it? I find that rather hard to believe.

When the residential schools were closed the structures were torn down and the sites bulldozed. The children that went there spoke about the dead children but no one believed them. Today as adults many of them can recall the locations of the burial sites. However, it is difficult to pinpoint many since many of the sites have been either built upon or have grown over as scrub. What is interesting is that when the government announced the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the United Church started destroying records. Fortunately, some people in the Church were able to get copies before they were all lost forever. The TRC should be able to review many of the records and make that determination. All and all the 50,000 deaths is an estimate than many people believe is on the low end of the real number.

This is not even in the realm of speculation. It's just pure opinion with no basis in fact, inspired by what would appear to be nothing more than malice and ill will.

Actually western world view thinking IS identifiable and it does pervade western societal thinking processes. It is kind of a western bias and until there is a remarkable change in the colonial / imperialistic / violence-is-an-answer / dominant thinking of mainstream society, the abhorrences of the past are a very real possibility for the future. The only thing that has changed in Canada between the times that residential schools were a solution to the "Indian problem" and now, are a couple of generations. And the only reason we presently don't use open genocide tactics to rid ourselves of natives is because it is politically incorrect to do so. But don't think for a minute that those same ideas aren't discussed behind closed doors of government or industry, just like they are discussed here in the anonymous safety of an internet discussion board.

[AngusThermopyle]

Today as adults many of them can recall the locations of the burial sites.

Once again, I must ask. Why has no one ever exhumed even one of these sites? Do they really not care enough to do so?

Actually western world view thinking IS identifiable and it does pervade western societal thinking processes. It is kind of a western bias and until there is a remarkable change in the colonial / imperialistic / violence-is-an-answer / dominant thinking of mainstream society, the abhorrences of the past are a very real possibility for the future. The only thing that has changed in Canada between the times that residential schools were a solution to the "Indian problem" and now, are a couple of generations. And the only reason we presently don't use open genocide tactics to rid ourselves of natives is because it is politically incorrect to do so. But don't think for a minute that those same ideas aren't discussed behind closed doors of government or industry, just like they are discussed here in the anonymous safety of an internet discussion board.

This has to be one of the purest examples of unsubstantiated opinion that I've ever heard. Give some actual facts to back up your words please. At present they stand merely as examples of unfounded ramblings.

[jennie]

Once again, I must ask. Why has no one ever exhumed even one of these sites? Do they really not care enough to do so?

This has to be one of the purest examples of unsubstantiated opinion that I've ever heard. Give some actual facts to back up your words please. At present they stand merely as examples of unfounded ramblings.

Once again we must answer ... no one is going to start randomly digging up graves until the records are searched to indicate who the children are. The point of exhuming would be to identify the children's remains and return them to their families.

Thus, such efforts require government and church cooperation. The government has refused to acknowledge that children died in the schools until recently.

Those efforts, thus, are just beginning.

Edited September 18, 2007 by jennie

[AngusThermopyle]

Once again we must answer

Actually your last post is the first time you've attempted to answer that question.

I spent 6 months in Rwanda, witnessed Genocide with my own eyes. During my 6 months in Yugo I once again witnessed Genocide, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale than that which occured in Rwanda. Once you've seen it you most certainly remember and recognize it.

no one is going to start randomly digging up graves until the records are searched to indicate who the children are.

This would appear to be a rather specious argument designed to disguise an ulterior motive. It would be far easier to identify actual bodies than to attempt identification by reliance on possibly altered documents, DNA doesn't lie. Further, are you going to tell me that a group that does not recognize Canadian law or the church is going to decide to obey both these laws and the church when it comes to these matters?

I find your reasoning to be rather convoluted and suspect as regards these matters.

[jennie]

Actually your last post is the first time you've attempted to answer that question.

I spent 6 months in Rwanda, witnessed Genocide with my own eyes. During my 6 months in Yugo I once again witnessed Genocide, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale than that which occured in Rwanda. Once you've seen it you most certainly remember and recognize it.

This would appear to be a rather specious argument designed to disguise an ulterior motive. It would be far easier to identify actual bodies than to attempt identification by reliance on possibly altered documents, DNA doesn't lie. Further, are you going to tell me that a group that does not recognize Canadian law or the church is going to decide to obey both these laws and the church when it comes to these matters?

I find your reasoning to be rather convoluted and suspect as regards these matters.

They do not have access to the records nor to DNA testing. They will not 'dig up' bodies if they cannot identify them.

Why is it so difficult to believe that the government would not cooperate with them? Do you really think the government is going to HELP expose the horrific death rates in the residential schools?

[Rue]

You are a lawyer - do you honestly believe that aboriginals would not try to use the declaration in Canadian courts? And do you honestly believe that the declaration would have zero effect on the ultimate ruling by the court if the Canadian government had signed it?

You can never solve a problem created by racism with more racism.

Sorry Riverwind I was not ignoring you. Just reading all the other posts. To answer your question, which I thought I did-the declaration's application is a non issue because it doesn't say anything specific and what it does say the Supreme Court of Canada and many case decisions have already conceded. So in one word, NO.

One other thing, I have no idea the reasoning you use to say that because native peoples seek remedy to treaties that were breached that this is racist for them to do or that the notion they be considered as a nation of nations is racist or for that matter the notion they have collective rights is racist.

How is it racist? I think you are confusing a people's legal right to be self-determined with your own personal subjective view that because they seek self-determination this discriminates against you.

More the point you miss the legal point. The Magna Carta Act and many other doctrines and legal precedents not to mention the Supreme Court of Canada have made it clear that legally the concept of native people having collective rights and a right to be self-determined is not racist but historic rights that LOGICALLY flow from previously recognized legal relationships.

If you are asking is their precedent for peoples or identifiable groups to be recognized as having collective rights that can be expressed through self-determination, I would simply say, yes that is what the Charter of Rghts enshrines and from a purely constititutional perspective it also flows from doctrine that is mroe accurately described as unwritten custom that always formed part of the Canadian constitution. In addition to our Charter and Constitution Act there are numerous unwritten doctrines that form part of our constitutionality or constitutionalism and some of those unwritten doctrine deal with the recognition of native peoples as a collective entity when negotiating with the government. That was then repeated in cases. This concept is not about being racist on the contrary it is about preventing racism-it is about conceptualizing legally that native peoples and their nations prior to the formation of Canada in 1967 are considered equals. If it was racist, then the native peoples would not be considered a collective concept and as you wish, simply be ignored as a distinct people with rights that preceded the creation of Canada and did not extinguish simply because Canada was created in 1867.

[AngusThermopyle]

How is it racist? I think you are confusing a people's legal right to be self-determined

Would this not imply that they also be self sufficient? Would not declarations of Sovereignty furthermore support the position of self sufficiency? According to the definitions of Sovereign that I've read it would appear to be so.

How do you reconcile self determination with continued use of the infrastructure developed by a Government they claim is not valid in relation to them?

[jennie]

Would this not imply that they also be self sufficient? Would not declarations of Sovereignty furthermore support the position of self sufficiency? According to the definitions of Sovereign that I've read it would appear to be so.

How do you reconcile self determination with continued use of the infrastructure developed by a Government they claim is not valid in relation to them?

Six Nations, for example, had a plan to be self sufficient. It involved leasing certain of their lands and using the money for infrastructure, economic development, "maintenance and care" of the Six Nations people.

So what happened to their plan?

History tells the tale ... and we all know the story.

[Riverwind]

One other thing, I have no idea the reasoning you use to say that because native peoples seek remedy to treaties that were breached that this is racist for them to do or that the notion they be considered as a nation of nations is racist or for that matter the notion they have collective rights is racist.

It is the collective rights that I have an issue with. 200 years ago the aboriginals were sovereign political entities that could reasonably negotiate as a equals with the colonial government. They looked after their own people and the colonial government looked after the settlers and there was a clear distinction between the two.

Today that distinction is gone. Aboriginals have full rights as Canadian citizens and expect the Canadian government to look after their interests but they also demand special rights because of their genetic connection to the sovereign political entities that used to exist. This is what I see as racist and I think that most others would too if the economic conditions of aboriginals were better than the average.

For example, there used to be a collective in England identified by the ancestry that had special rights. For example, only people from this collective could be appointed to the House of Lords. The people of England recognized that creating two tiers of citizens based on their ancestry was wrong and have ended the practice. You have rejected this comparison in the past but your argument was nothing more than aboriginals are economically disadvantaged therefore their collective rights are justified but the collective rights of the English nobility are not justified. I don't feel that is a reasonable argument because economic status is never permanent. We should not be giving rights to people today because they are poorer than average that we would not want them to have if they were richer than average.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

Six Nations, for example, had a plan to be self sufficient. It involved leasing certain of their lands and using the money for infrastructure, economic development, "maintenance and care" of the Six Nations people.

That sounds good though a little basic. What of services such as postal, currencies, that sort of thing? These are some of the hallmarks of sovereignty, social services, immigration boards, such things are other hallmarks of a sovereign nation.

Accepting social assistance from another nation is not counted amongst them. What will be interesting is to see how serious these people are about sovereignty. Will they renounce all the infrastructure they now utilize and develop there own health care system amongst other things, or will they still want to use the existing systems and thus only be pretend sovereign.

[jennie]

It is the collective rights that I have an issue with. 200 years ago the aboriginals were soveriegn political entities that could reasonabley negotiate as a equals with the colonial government. They looked after their own people and the colonial government looked after the settlers and there was a clear distiction between the two.

Today that distinction is gone. Aboriginals have full rights as Canadian citizens and expect the Canadian government to look after their interests but they also demand special rights because of their genetic connection to the soveriegn political entities that used to exist. This is what I see as racist and I think that most others would too if the economic conditions of aboriginals were better than the average.

For example, there used to be a collective in England identified by the ancentry that had special rights. For example, only people from this collective could be appointed to the House of Lords. The people of England recognized that creating two tiers of citizens based on their ancentry was wrong and have ended the practice. You have rejected this comparison in the past but your argument was nothing more than aborginals are economically disadvantaged therefore their collective rights are justified but the collective rights of the English noblity are not justified. I don't feel that is a reasonable argument because economic status is never permenent. We should not be giving rights to people today because they are poorer than average that we would not want them to have if they were richer than average.

Interesting comparison, but not really relevant.

You say "that distinction is gone. Aboriginals have full rights as Canadian citizens" as if it was true.

You know it isn't true. They are governed by the Indian Act which makes them 'wards' of the government. They are treated as 'dependents', not as citizens.

[guyser]

, or will they still want to use the existing systems and thus only be pretend sovereign.

Gee....I wonder ....

[jennie]

That sounds good though a little basic. What of services such as postal, currencies, that sort of thing? These are some of the hallmarks of sovereignty, social services, immigration boards, such things are other hallmarks of a sovereign nation.

Accepting social assistance from another nation is not counted amongst them. What will be interesting is to see how serious these people are about sovereignty. Will they renounce all the infrastructure they now utilize and develop there own health care system amongst other things, or will they still want to use the existing systems and thus only be pretend sovereign.

Another possibility is that they will purchase service for some things. This already happens in some cases - education I believe. Health care they have some and would likely purchase service for others, and may already, I am not sure.

This, of course would be a beneficial arrangement for Canada since the tremendous debt we have to them can, in part, be paid through providing services rather than cash.

[Riverwind]

You say "that distinction is gone. Aboriginals have full rights as Canadian citizens" as if it was true.

It is true. The indian act only controls what happens on reserves and no native is required to live on a reserve.