Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[Leafless]

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.

Indians are free to move to the big cities any time they want.

What do you expect government to do? Move big cities out into the bush so Indians can live like their ancestors did, but with the exception of skidoos, high powered boats, and at the same time enjoy all the amenities big cities have. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

This is beginning to sound similar to the big Quebec question, what do Indians really want, but are not going to get.

Hey, I would love to live like an Indian, hunt, fish and skidoo all year and have government pay the shot.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Leafless

[jennie]

Indians are free to move to the big cities any time they want.

What do you expect government to do? Move big cities out into the bush so Indians can live like their ancestors did, but with the exception of skidoos, high powered boats, and at the same time enjoy all the amenities big cities have. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

This is beginning to sound similar to the big Quebec question, what do Indians really want, but are not going to get.

Hey, I would love to live like an Indian, hunt, fish and skidoo all year and have government pay the shot.

They choose not to. You see, everytime they leave a piece of land the government steals it.

[geoffrey]

They can renounce their Indian status and have all the rights of anyone else in a heartbeat.

Somehow I feel the deal is better being an Indian, otherwise they all would have done it already. Free everything and no taxes is definitely hard to beat.

[jennie]

They can renounce their Indian status and have all the rights of anyone else in a heartbeat.

Absolutely, and any who wanted to have done so.

Makes you wonder though, if they are not citizens of Canada and they have to renounce something else ... what can they be renouncing ... except sovereignty?

[geoffrey]

They would renounce their race based privledge. Purely on DNA, they get extra benefits.

Who'd want to give that up? If I were an Indian, I'd take status.

[jennie]

They would renounce their race based privledge. Purely on DNA, they get extra benefits.

Who'd want to give that up? If I were an Indian, I'd take status.

If you were an 'Indian' would you go back to India?

You do know it is offensive to use that word pejoratively?

[jbg]

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.

I would think the point would be to prove out an atrocity you and Posit are baldly accusing "whitey" of.

[jennie]

I would think the point would be to prove out an atrocity you and Posit are baldly accusing "whitey" of.

That will come out, I expect.

It is the government and the churches who bear the direct responsibility.

All of us 'whiteys' will have to determine for ourselves what responsibility we bear.

Edited September 19, 2007 by jennie

[AngusThermopyle]

All of us 'whiteys' will have to determine for ourselves what responsibility we bear.

And will all us "Whitey's" have to pay for perpetuity in response to what a hand full did? Is this some sort of collective Flying Dutchman thing? If thats the case then good luck, you can only impose guilt on people for so long before they get tired of it.

If all you've said about the schools turns out to be true then what do you think the result should be? Do you think it will be the usual solution? More concessions, more land and more money. Is that the solution? For perpetuity?

[jennie]

And will all us "Whitey's" have to pay for perpetuity in response to what a hand full did? Is this some sort of collective Flying Dutchman thing? If thats the case then good luck, you can only impose guilt on people for so long before they get tired of it.

If all you've said about the schools turns out to be true then what do you think the result should be? Do you think it will be the usual solution? More concessions, more land and more money. Is that the solution? For perpetuity?

Their request is to return the children's remains to their families and tell the whole truth: There is no reconciliation without full disclosure.

My request is to respect that our good fortunes as Canadians come from their land.

[M.Dancer]

Absolutely, and any who wanted to have done so.

Makes you wonder though, if they are not citizens of Canada and they have to renounce something else ... what can they be renouncing ... except sovereignty?

You are starting to sound like a freeman. Just because you keep repeating the same old bullshit won't make it smell any fresher. They are citizens of Canada. They have the same rights of every canadian, and a few more to boot. If they are not citizens, then tell them to get off the public tit.

[jennie]

You are starting to sound like a freeman. Just because you keep repeating the same old bullshit won't make it smell any fresher. They are citizens of Canada. They have the same rights of every canadian, and a few more to boot. If they are not citizens, then tell them to get off the public tit.

According to the 'Indian' Act, they are wards of the State. Do your homework.

[M.Dancer]

According to the 'Indian' Act, they are wards of the State. Do your homework.

Are Indians allowed to vote, yes or no?

[M.Dancer]

And while you are doing your homework, the indian act was ammended .....see bill c-31

Now please end your non citizen self serving blatherskite

[jennie]

And while you are doing your homework, the indian act was ammended .....see bill c-31

Now please end your non citizen self serving blatherskite

You can clarify what you are referring to if you like.

Or answer my question: If they have to renounce 'something' to become a Canadian citizen, what are they 'renouncing' if not sovereignty?

[Rue]

And while you are doing your homework, the indian act was ammended .....see bill c-31

Now please end your non citizen self serving blatherskite

Here is in my personal opinion an excellent legal synopsis of Bill C-31;

http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/dnlsc-31.html.

With due respect Dance, Bill 31 has many flaws. That said, the concept of "wardship" you seem to be saying it changed it did not.

The criticism presented in this article is based on problems associated with legal fundamentalism when it comes to defining who an aboriginal is. Much of the criticism in this article has already been conceded by the people who drafted it.

The problem with looking at such amendments is in trying to understand they are a snap-shot in time in terms of where we are progressing legally. We in fact are moving away from Bill C-31 and towards another more equitable method to define the collective identity of aboriginals.

Bill C 31 reflects the thought by non aboriginals that concepts of sexual equality should be superimposed into aboriginal conception of collective identity using a Western feminist legal perspective. In so doing it made defective assumptions about how aboriginals conceive gender when defining collective rights.

It is this continuing assumption that Canada needs to create law to tell aboriginal people how to ceonceive of themselves is absurd. It is precisely because it assumes they are in need of such direction that leads aboriginal peoples to experience themselves still being treated as wards of the state or children of the state or inferiors who need to be told when and how to think.

I think Bill C-31's intention of trying to assure how aboriginals define themselves conforms with the Charter of Rights concept of sexual equality may have been well intentioned but was poorly conceived and did not properly consider the practical implications of trying to impose one set of cultural values over another rather than trying to conceive a formula that allowed them both to co-exist for specific applications of the law when it comes to defining aboriginal collective rights.

[jennie]

It is this continuing assumption that Canada needs to create law to tell aboriginal people how to conceive of themselves is absurd. It is precisely because it assumes they are in need of such direction that leads aboriginal peoples to experience themselves still being treated as wards of the state or children of the state or inferiors who need to be told when and how to think.

Well said Rue. "absurd" Thank you.

[Rue]

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?

Actually no. The desire to be self-determined and the ability to be economically self-sufficient are not the same although in an ideal world it is hoped self-determination can lend to the conditions that can then lead to self-sufficiency. Many peoples are self-determined but far from self-sufficient.

Legally to reconcile being a nation of nations (the aboriginal peoples and their nations) that co-exists with another nation of nations (the federal government and its provinces) you enshrine it in a constitution and in federal and provincial laws no different then how the federal and provincial governments divide certain powers in the Constitution Act which become the particular jurisdiction of one and not the other, while other areas of jurisdiction are allowed to over-lap and run parallel to one another.

Another example of reconciliation in law is how healing circles are being used as an alternative to traditional criminal sentencing in the criminal system or the umbrella type approach to health regulation we now see in Ontario. Ontarios new new health regulation reconciles the need to treat 23 different approaches to health treatment (through 23 colleges each a nation to itself)as equals on some levels under the same regulatory framework but also allows them to remain autonomous, distinct and self-regulatory on another level. all must conform to certain regulatory rules, but then are allowed to operate diffferently in other areas and none is considered better then the others.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

They would renounce their race based privledge. Purely on DNA, they get extra benefits.

Who'd want to give that up? If I were an Indian, I'd take status.

with due respect Geofrey its not a race based privilege, it is a collective right. There's a huge difference. If it was a race based privilege, aboriginals would be seeking to enshrine or codify the right to discriminate against non natives.

If you read their legal arguements, if you take the time to actually read what they ask for legally, you would see they simply ask that what has already been legall defined as their colllective rights in treaties be honoured by the signatory, i.e. the federal government. They are simply asking the government follow what it agreed to.

There is no privilege if all you seek is something you are legally entitled to.

You are confusing your subjective feeling that you feel aboriginals want something you can't have with the legal concept of privilege-these are two very different things.

Again Geoffrey in specific situations because of the direct or indirect result of the federal or provincial governments breaching these treaties, it is precisely these breaches that haave then created situations where non natives have been given legal privileges illegally. Now when aboriginals say, the legal privileges are illegal, you define that as aboriginals seeking racial privileges. They are not. They are merely seeking redress for the breaches to their treaties that then lead to the illegal granting of legal priviliges to non natives.

No you can't ignore the breached treaties legally and say, hey we will only consider the law from now on in, and nothing before that.

No it would be legally absurd to selectively ignore past breaches. That in fact would be racist and seeking to enforce law based on racial agenda, i.e., that non native rights are the only ones in need of recognition.

No in this case in a rational, logical, fair legal system we redress the damages and inequities that flow from the breaches. If an innocent third party through no fault of their own finds themselves faced with being in the wrong place at the wrong time caused by an illegal application of the law that gave them rights they never should have had but did not take intentionally-then we compensate such people as well.

There is a way to restrore the imbalance of the breached treaties with individual predicaments faced by specific peoples who are not native.

If you read what every aboriginal leader has said, they have stated over and over again they have been willing to compromise and find creative ways to reconcile the conflicts-the problem is each time they have, its been used by the federal government as a pretense to ignore them and not respond. That Sir, is a fact easily documented by the time lines of the negotiations as to the breached treaties and the number of federal negotiatiors that have come and gone refusing to commit to anything because whether the federal goverment was Tory or Liberal, it did not want to agree to anything let alone even negotiate.

The federal government did ironically think it important to lecture aboriginal peoples on sexual equality concepts and amend the Indian Act over that, but when it has come to land rights or say compensation for damages from forced kidnappings of aboriginal children and placing them in Christian institutions far from their families-that it has had no problem dragging on and on.

I say it again Geoffrey, no I do not want to cause anyone hardship native or non native. I personally want to find a way to reconcile any conflicts caused by treaty breaches.

I have no desire to demonize or hurt anyone. I know you think what I think will hurt innocent people. My problem is I am not skillful enough to be able to explain in easy to understand legal terms that it is possible legally to recognize the aboriginal peoples' collective rights without hurting the people you think this would cause.

[jbg]

Here is in my personal opinion an excellent legal synopsis of Bill C-31;

http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/dnlsc-31.html.

With due respect Dance, Bill 31 has many flaws. That said, the concept of "wardship" you seem to be saying it changed it did not.

The criticism presented in this article is based on problems associated with legal fundamentalism when it comes to defining who an aboriginal is. Much of the criticism in this article has already been conceded by the people who drafted it.

I have real problems with calling a bill whose purpose is to promote mainstream integration "abo-cide". It may be "band-leader-cide" as in disempowering those poverty pimps, but abocide? A bit strong a term I'm afraid.

[ScottSA]

with due respect Geofrey its not a race based privilege, it is a collective right. There's a huge difference. If it was a race based privilege, aboriginals would be seeking to enshrine or codify the right to discriminate against non natives.

With respect, this is nonsense. You can call it a cumquat if you want, but it's most certainly race based, and dragging a semantic herring across the path doesn't change the fact. If you want to call it "collective right," feel free, but just remember that the key to get into said "collective" is genetic. It's as race based as the Aryan Brotherhood. Painting the pig with legal jargon does mean you can't get pork chops out of it.

[Riverwind]

If it was a race based privilege, aboriginals would be seeking to enshrine or codify the right to discriminate against non natives.

That is exactly what they want when they claim large tracts of land that are already occupied by other people. They seek to reduce non-natives to the status of feudal serfs.

This criticism certainly does not apply to all native groups but it definitely describes the native supremacists who populate this forum.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

With respect, this is nonsense. You can call it a cumquat if you want, but it's most certainly race based, and dragging a semantic herring across the path doesn't change the fact. If you want to call it "collective right," feel free, but just remember that the key to get into said "collective" is genetic. It's as race based as the Aryan Brotherhood. Painting the pig with legal jargon does mean you can't get pork chops out of it.

Anybody has the right to belong to a collective. Families, extended families, hold property, companies, etc in common.

They have a right. Chances are they are all the same race. So if families are not multicultural, they cannot collectively inherit ??

What ARE you saying here?

[Riverwind]

So if families are not multicultural, they cannot collectively inherit ??

Only aboriginals inhierit special rights. Families may inhierit assets but they must always pay tax when these assets are transferred.

[jennie]

That is exactly what they want when they claim large tracts of land that are already occupied by other people. They seek to reduce non-natives to the status of feudal serfs.

Do they?

You mean if our governments don't bargain in good faith, perhaps, we could run into a problem ... if our governments don't protect our property deeds.

They issue them, they better guarantee them, I say.