Topic
Love The Tyee? We need your support. Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
Will ask BC Supreme Court to halt signing.
Tsawwassen territory as defined in treaty.
First Nations calling themselves "salt water people" want the B.C. Supreme Court to stall the Tsawwassen final agreement, which they say violates their "exclusive rights to Pender, Mayne, Saturna, and Boundary Bay."
The Sencot'en C'A,I,Newel, which includes four First Nations in Victoria and White Rock, say their rights have been trampled under the B.C. treaty process.
They own land and harvesting rights in Boundary Bay and Pender, Mayne and Saturna Islands under the 1852 Douglas Treaty.
The Tsawwassen agreement unfairly trumps this existing treaty, says Sencot'en spokesman Eric Pelkey.
In court Monday
The high-profile deal has been $1.5 billion and 15 years in the making. It is the province's first urban treaty, and means more than 400 hectares of land north of Vancouver and a share of the Fraser River salmon catch for members of the Tsawwassen Nation.
Under the agreement, Tsawwassen are also granted hunting and fishing rights on the Southern Gulf Islands and in surrounding waters -- rights that the Sencot'en say are theirs alone.
On Monday, the Sencot'en will appear before a B.C. Supreme Court judge to request an order preventing Aborginal Relations and Reconciliation Minster Michael de Jong from signing the agreement.
The deal is likened to "title fraud" in a press release issued by the Sencot'en C'A,I,Newel. "First Nations that used southern Gulf Islands in the past did so with our permission. We find it odd that the Crown is willing to implement a Treaty with Tsawwassen that includes harvesting rights in the Gulf Islands when the Crown must first negotiate with us. Sort of having someone make a deal to sell your house and then tell you about it afterwards -- in real estate law this is called title fraud."
'Ask us for permission'
The Sencot'en say they aren't opposed to the agreement itself, but want a guarantee from the minister that it will minimize infringements on their hunting and fishing rights.
Liberal MLA Dennis MacKay said he might vote against the agreement -- which comes before legislature next month -- in a Globe and Mail report September 15. MacKay expressed concerns about granting hunting rights in northern Nisga'a territory.
NDP leader Carole James suspended MLA Michael Sather earlier this week for stating his opposition to the deal.
Pelkey says his people are concerned about a depletion of resources and loss of jurisdiction in their territory.
"We've never stopped sharing resources in our territory," says Pelkey. "We've never said we would not allow anyone else to come and access resources, we ask only that they come and ask us for permission."
'Salt water people'
The Sencot'en harvesting rights under the 1852 treaty have been upheld in court, but the Sencot'en are not part of the B.C. treaty process. First Nations that are involved in this process aren't required to consult with neighboring nations.
"We've been banging on the door now for probably up to three years because of our dissatisfaction with the B.C. treaty process and how we see numerous First Nations laying claim to our lands," says Pelkey.
The Sencot'en nations, which total about 1,200 people, have reserves on Pender, Mayne, Saturna, Saltspring and Bare Islands.
"This is a very valuable area for us," says Pelkey. "Historically our people here have been known as salt water people. We have no major rivers in our territory. We actually live out there on the water and that's why we have those reserves and also fishing stations."
Tsawwassen chief Kim Baird and a spokesperson for Minister de Jong both said they will not comment due to the pending legal proceedings.
Related Tyee stories:
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
85
Login or register to post comments
RickW
5 years ago
Perhaps this link says it all............
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/10/JamesTsawwassen/
BTW Canada officially voted against entrenching indigenous peoples' rights in the UN a couple of days ago.
Regardless of the rhetoric spewed forth by Chuck Strahl, that puts any FN treaties ratified in this country squarely into the political arena, and not into the basic human rights arena, where it should be.
Mark Crawford
5 years ago
Deja Vu--and a Predictable Pattern?
This was a problem with the Nisga'a Treaty as well, although the government took great pains to downplay it--there were other First Nations whose "boundaries" overlapped with those of the Nisga'a and who felt cheated by a deal that a government was anxious to achieve.
I suppose that this is a problem that can be "solved" in the courts, but it should give us pause--are we trying to put First Nations rights in a White Man's box of exclusive property? Perhaps the truer nature of aboriginal and treaty rights is that they should apply to all of BC and coexist with the rights of others. But that would not be consistent with the exclusivity and alienability that is the sine qua non of property under capitalism....
switek
5 years ago
It's good for the lawyers. That much we know.
I would very much like to see an article featured in the TYEE on the Industry that has resulted from the treaty process. Millions upon Millions of tax dollars and lawyers that have Indian bands wrapped around their finger. Fight,fight,fight say the lawyers. But does all of this expensive legal fighting result in anything but more money for the lawyers ?
How much traditional hunting really occurs on the Gulf Islands ? I see none. But I see plenty of wealthy lawyers building their fancy summer homes on the gulf islands.
I think many first nation leaders are being hoodwinked by the lawyers. I suppose as long as the free plane trips and all expenses paid stays at the Hotel Vancouver continue everyone is happy. Nudge nudge; wink wink, But back on the reserve the poverty and suffering continue.
Will the litigation ever end ?
asher
5 years ago
Saanich treaty
Is this refering to the Douglas Treaty that was signed with First Nations on the Saanich Peninsula? It would help if the article would make this clearer.
In that regard, this is somewhat different from the Nisga'a Treaty since when that treaty was being negotiated there were outstanding claims by neighboring FNs that had been filed with the government. But in this case, it was already clear, before the Tsawassen entered into the modern day treaty process, that there were 100 year-old treaty rights and court implementation of these rights to the Saanich peoples. So, the Tsawassen treaty infringes on the Doulglas Treaty.
I don't expcet the NDP to stand up for this Douglas Treaty argument since the treaty is meant to divide the NDP just as teh Nisga'a teraty was meant to divide teh liberals.
DPL
5 years ago
The article said that this
The article said that this deal cost 1.5 Billions and took 15 years. The 15 years is close to being right but who stopped talking so often? it was the band The number 1.5 sort of rolls off the tongue but that is inccorect. That's the total copst in asll nbegotiatings in BC so far.
Overlaps have been around since day one and ould be plainly seen to be a issue when the bands decid4d they had claim to 155 percent of the provicne. Overlaps were supposed to be settled by the bands prior to a treaty being finished so I guess that the reason some bands are doing the trip o the courthouse. who pays? Guess who? It's everone in BC as we get to see the present premier doing his little dance complete with regalia when things really arn't settled. Treaty negotiations are supposed to be careful as finallity is supposed to be part of the process. how final can it be if overlaps still exist?
Skywalker
5 years ago
There is an advantage to being first
There is an advantage to being first out of the gate when it comes to treaties. Those nations who are ready to negotiate and have all their preparations completed may find that the governments have more options with them and will seize the opportunity. Governments could wait until all the bands are ready and overlap disputes have been settled but that would take decades, time that BC can't afford.
In the political game you have to be able to show results. It is politically expedient and the price will be exacted years down the road.
Each possible settlement must be looked at on its own merits. The Tsawwassen treaty fails even before this latest wrinkle.
IAMC
5 years ago
It's never final
Let's start by insisting that Indians be given human rights. Canadian human rights.
They have been denied to them for 30 years.
The Govt. of Canada has been trying to do this, but opposition parties and some Indians themselves, don't want it to happen.
Why? because Indian leadership doesn't want individual rights, the want collectivism to rule.
As I say, not all Indians are rejecting the offer of human rights.
There have been groups, mainly women, who want the same rights as the rest of Canadians, but the status quo, don't want to give up their power over these women.
If you are a woman, who splits up with her husband on a reserve, you are toast.
You don't have anything.
A common practise in and around before Confederation, within a band called the "taw-wa-tins" in BC, was that when a male Indian died, his wife was turned over to his relatives as a slave, and being neither allowed to wash her comb herself for 3 years. She would carry the burnt remains of her husband on her back, the whole time, so that she soon became a disgusting object.
At the end of 3 tears she was stripped and smeared with fish oil, over which one of the bystanders throws a quantity of swan's down, covering her entire person.
She is then obligated to dance with the others. After all this is over she is free to marry again, if she has the inclination and courage enough to venture on a second risk of being roasted alive and the subsequent horrors.
It often happened that a widow who has married a second husband, in the hope of possibly of outliving him, committed suicide, rather than going through a second ordeal.
Now I am not saying that this is happening today, but still women need human rights.
Why are we not helping these people achieve Canadian human rights, like the rest of us?
What good does a non binding UN resolution do to help them. Nothing.
To all those that want to trash Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia for not voting for this illegal resolution, get on the bandwagon of Canadian human rights.
Are you trying to kill these people?
G West
5 years ago
I'm the last person who could be expected
I'm the last person who will defend this treaty - although my problems with it have nothing to do with the substance of this article.
I think that, in order to understand how the courts will deal with objections and conflicts implied in the above (between the two treaties and their competing claims) one would have to see the actual provincial legislation that will give effect to the treaty itself.
I suspect that the courts will not, prior to the passage of that legislation, interfere in the process.
Once the legislation has been introduced, debated and passed (with or without amendment) it will then be necessary to look at the words of that law in order to determine if there is (and I expect there will be) some mechanism in it to cover disputes between adjacent or conflicting claims.
In other words, I think we'll have to wait a bit to see where this one's going.
DPL
5 years ago
I am known to be a lousy
I am known to be a lousy person on a key board and as usual missed a few keys here and there.Sorry about that. The amounts claimed were 115 percent of the whole province. When asked the premier of the time( Mike Harcourt) stated the obvious. "We asked the bands what area they claimed and thats what the numbers added up to." Nobody believed that proved ownership of anything. In the Douglas Traeties each band involved made reference to the edges of their land and the rest was to be for the folks other than indians.
Even with the Douglas Treaty in place the present premier started running scared as two local bands got upset with him and his weird referendum so decided to file for a court to decide if they , and not BC owned the land where the Legislature was built upon. That little event cost us 35 millions of dollars.Thanks Gordo.Hey it's only money!
Someone above said the Indians have not been allowed Canadian Human Rights. The federal government which is not my favourite government by any means recently raised a bill to bring sections of the human rights in place for Indians by excluding some of the weasel words from the Indian Act. I almost fainted when I saw the NDP Federally oppose the changes.Their federal critic told me it was the womans groups that didn't want the changes.
The UN item is totally different and Canada has been oppsoted to the UN sub committee position for a number of years.
At present, if a woman gets booted out of her home on reserve she cannot go to the Human Rights Board to ask for assistance as the section for that request is overridden by the Indian Act. Le'ts all not get our assorted authorities mixed up.
A band has two ways to claim tile, Prove it's there's in courts or as so often suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada to negotiate what bundle of rights will be in the final treaty. Overlaps are a fact of life as everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie. It must get sorted and as soon as possible or we will see no finality with folks pointing figures and claiming chunks of the lands. Those bands involved in overlaps were supposed to work it out among themsleves, I guess they didn't.
Earnest canuck
5 years ago
Dickson and LaForest were sadists
It's generally clarifying, in these matters, to take a look at what 19th-cent. treaties *actually said.* The salt water litigants agreed in 1852, within their Douglas area, excepting "villages and enclosed fields" (ie reserves), to "... surrender, entirely and forever... the land itself." The treaty goes on to clarify that the land became "... the entire property of the white people for ever." I've elided nothing significant here; each Douglas agreement was blindingly clear and not susceptible to misinterpretation, except on purpose. They were one page long! The Douglas bands, despite what hotheads and revisionists may claim, don't *have* any "traditional lands." They knowingly signed off on that. // The rub is, the bands were to be "at liberty to hunt over the *unoccupied* lands [emphasis mine], and to carry on [their] fisheries as formerly." I guess it's this provision that's resulted in the present intramural squabble. But what a bunch of gibberish it is, in the modern context, eh? Almost none of the land could today be considered "unoccupied;" really, no Douglas Indian therefore should be hunting *at all.* And today’s Native fisheries, since they’re not carried on "as formerly," ie for sustenance and in a pre-Contact manner, are entirely illegal. If we take the treaties seriously, that is. I might also note that “the white people” are not really completely white anymore, either…// My point is, we don’t actually take the treaties seriously, in toto, as iron-clad eternal contracts anymore. (And we shouldn’t: every treaty across the Dominion was signed under political conditions that no longer exist, and between parties that in many ways have likewise vanished.) Logic and justice would demand that such agreements be scrapped and rendered null and void, then, right? // Ha, ha, ha. The judiciary, courts and legislatures of the past few decades decided, instead, to enforce only the convenient parts of treaty “law,” and to pretend that the inconvenient parts, like extinguishment of title, never existed. Now, to selectively enforce Canadian law according to political expediency may seem quite insane and hypocritical, like an attack on the notion of law itself; this modish approach may appear vehemently racialist on its face, like a self-evident recipe for endless strife and societal destabilization; its early results may seem self-evidently disastrous; but hey, it’s the “generous and liberal” approach, man.
Earnest canuck
5 years ago
Dickson con't
This thing between the Tsawwassen and Sencot’en is just another example of the total inability of hippie ideals to solve real-world problems. I mean, think about it: the liberal approach here has created a dispute that is *entirely irresolveable.* Which suits the vast “Indian industry” apparatus of legalists, subsidized activists, academics and governmental apparatchiks just fine; they *feast* on paralysis, and will keep profiting from this miserable conundrum, and thousands of similar ones they’re busily creating, for all eternity, if we let them. // Or: we could scrap the Indian Act, nullify both the nonsensical old treaties and the unworkable new ones, break up the reserves into freehold land, terminate the noxious notion of special “status,” and free Canadian Indians at last, with the gift of individual equality before the law.
Canis Latrans
5 years ago
And there is the nub...
... that just like us "immigrant nation" folks, natives don't always see eye to eye either. Like us, they have all the similar clashing interests, opportunist, good guy and bad guy sets we do. None of us stands before history, no nation or alliance of nations, with entirely clean hands.
We have a just and fair settlement to make yet, with the aboriginal peoples of this land. Muddying the waters, however, toying with it for their own gain and setting us all against each other, are the backroom corporatist interests that are the class base of the Neocon Liberals. For it's not really native interests and ambitions we're talking here, nor even our own "immigrant nation" interest for that matter, but the "over-development", the world as a parking lot self-interest set of these "ruling class" folks.
It's their finger in the pie that is the source of the bad taste most of us are complaining about here.
kootcoot
5 years ago
On Being Earnest (Canuck)
Earnest Canuck says:
.
You must be implying that the Right Wingnut or Neo-Con ideals work better at solving "real world" problems. Like say, Baghdad, the Korean Penninsula, Taiwan and its neighbor Big China, or Pol Pot, or the way Israel spreads peace, justice and democracy around the Middle East.
Then you go on and basically attribute motives of greed (the only motives the right seems to understand) to any one working on issues of social justice with:
Meanwhile the slimers trying to sneak land out of the ALR, or busily selling off the assets that rightfully belong to ALL British Columbians are guided by only the purest of motives, to make the world a better place. Better in the sense that there is more money in their wallets, but hey it's those lawyers and social workers that are the greedy capitalist pigs, don't forget - oh yeah and those academics, they are the greediest. I remember some tenure battles at various "ivory towers" and the observation that never did anyone fight so hard for so little.
Halliburton, Kinder-Morgan, Accenture, Alcan, CN - I don't know why these guys aren't given tax excempt status, I mean everything they do is for the common good, right?
Yammer
5 years ago
This is what happens
Mark Crawford's solioquy about the "truer nature" of the First Nations is idealistic but also reductive and, frankly, racist.
The key question is:
Are the First Nations people citizens of Canada, or are they not?
If they are citizens of Canada, they have the rights and responsibilities of Canadians. Period.
Granting political autonomy within our border to specific groups on the basis of ethnicity, which is the purpose and effect of the Indian Act and treaties with First Nations, is clearly proving to be a bad way to go, paralyzing the affairs of government, natives and non-natives alike with seemingly endless litigation.
For what cause? To perpetrate the marginalized, shunted-aside status of the First Nations for all eternity?
And to what end? It's easy to envision a future Canada where the majority of people are from mixed backgrounds. Who's the Indian then?
I thank the Salt Water People for throwing a wrench into this treaty process, illustrating its fundamental illogic.
We could keep enriching the lawyers, DIAND, and the chiefs indefinitely, or we could do something to end this tragic, racist farce: e.g. a financial settlement of all treaties, claims, and reparations to all living people who are defined aboriginals.
Working Man
5 years ago
Borders...
Of course, Alsace is rightfully part of Germany, as is East Prussia and Western Poland. Tokto is part of Korea and the correct name is East Sea, not the Sea of Japan.
G West
5 years ago
Racist?
And what would you call this little judgment Yammer?
To perpetrate the marginalized, shunted-aside status of the First Nations for all eternity?
Sounds a little racist to me.
Surely there are other options – ones that the people involved ought to be free to choose – no matter what the consequences for the rest of us are. I think that’s what the UN resolution was all about…and it isn’t something that is just important here in North America.
You might want to check how much of the actual funds expended by the Federal Dept of Indian Affairs actually gets to the people – by the way. I assure you, it is far less than 50%.
IAMC
5 years ago
Out of context
To use Yammers words out of context, to play the race card is unfair, but I should expect the race card to be played when all other arguments fail.
The UN declaration would lock Canada into many politically impossible guarantees for native peoples. Taken literally, it might be used to undo sensitive land claim agreements, once thought to have been settled. A provision is Article 19 of the document could be interpreted to give natives a veto over just about every piece of important legislation passed by Parliament.
It was a principled and courageous decision by our Government.
I am loosely quoting an editorial in the National Post today.
This native issue is complicated enough as it is without throwing a UN declaration into the mix.
But I am sure there are many who want to keep this issue extremely complicated, so we never settle the issue.
Just who is racist here.
Remember that Caledonia is still going on, and getting worse all the time.
We have to get over this apartheid, and welcome natives into Canada, with full rights that the rest of us Canadians have.
lynn
5 years ago
The Land of Pretend
The problem is this has been set-up "to appear" as a treaty process - and the only goodwill in reality being extended or offered here by the present BC Liberal government is towards the corporate interests they faithfully represent - a loyalty that knows no bounds.... and apparently has no borders.
And that is who the Twassassen Treaty was really designed for.
lynn
5 years ago
correction
..make that Tsawwassen
Yammer
5 years ago
Marginalized, shunted-aside
Alci,
I certainly mean no offense by that phrase. I don't think it's racist. To me, racism is the fettering of individuals who are believed to merit certain treatment according to purported group characteristics.
That reserve lands are shunted-aside and that the aboriginal peoples have been marginalized by the laws and payments supposedly for their benefit aren't terribly controversial observations, are they? Come on.
G West
5 years ago
Ron
Why don't you actually read the draft agreement - it's been around for decades.
Here's a link.
http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html
Try reading that instead of the National Post
for a change.
And here's the announcement from the NYTimes of the vote:
Nice bunch we've joined. pee wee should be proud - what a meaningful gesture it is to vote against a non-binding exercise that says, in essence, that we believe in some self-determination and don't believe in genocide.
A Canadian actually wrote the fundamental draft of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights. The country should hang its head in shame. Once leaders, we are now little more than bad jokes.
I think I'll work out a logo of the Canadian flag flattened by a huge shiny boot - should sell pretty well Ron.
G West
5 years ago
I expected that's how you'd respond Ron
Maybe that's what you do believe but my understanding of a lot of First Nations' desires really amounts to being allowed to do things their way and that means NOT BUYING into the dominant culture at all.
You might want to look at the way the territorial council of the North West Territories does its business.
As for dodging the declaration vote at the General Assembly - that was just stupid.
Yammer
5 years ago
As for "regardless of the consequences"
Really? I'm glad you're not in charge, and can afford to let your (laudable) idealism exclude ANY consideration of consequences for the decisions.
I know that there is a fundamental difference of opinion about the inherent rights of aboriginal people viz. ownership of the land. To me, it's not desirable to try to lock in rights of usage that were, in practice, abandoned for a century or more under the dictatorship of the European invaders. As a point of comparison, England does not grant the Celts special territories because of their former displacement by the Saxons. Our ancestors all migrated from somewhere; if you want to get picky about where the First Nations came from, they came over the Bering Straight, possibly from Europe in the first place!
It's much more desireable to look forward.
The nation-state has some mileage in it yet. I think we have to look forward to how to keep Canada an effective state which can therefore protect our freedoms. Dividing the territory and population among racial lines strikes me as being just about the worst way to operate.
Hence, reparations for the survivors (a la the Japanese-Canadians), an apology, and then... moving forward united. There's no other way to keep this thing together. Otherwise, why not Balkanize? Why even extend citizenship to the Indians, if we see them as so separate?
G West
5 years ago
Oh and Ron
Alci is retired - you address his mail to G West - that's
Love to hear from you anytime.
Did Japan vote yes for the treaty? I've always been very interested how the problems of the Ainu were solved there.
G West
5 years ago
I think we have to mostly leave it up to the First Nations
If their continuing use of their traditional lands and forests means we can't build our pipelines where we want to or turn their mountains into mines and their rivers into sewers then I think that's what they have a right to demand..
Moreover, I think it is clear that the motivating purpose behind the Campbell treaty push is not settlement – it is nothing more than commerce. Our cultural and racist hegemony is so thoroughgoing that we won’t even credit any more that there may be ‘other’ ways to approach this situation.
We're here on sufferance - they're still here because we weren't quite efficient enough in wiping them all out in the colonial period. If First Nations people don’t buy into our ways of sharing out the land and passing title from one to another – remember the potlatch – then that’s their business and we should butt out. The fact we’ve wrecked most of their resources and traditions means we’re going to have to pay – but it shouldn’t mean they have to give up cultural and tribal traditions that are important to them. In my view.
It's their decision... I think they've been sold a frightful bill of goods in the TFN case and I think you should look at the Navaho principles of self-government too...lots to learn - not much of it from me.
Yammer
5 years ago
Thanks for the link to the draft declaration
It was an interesting read though, as you may suspect, I don't agree with it. (Not sure what you meant by your crack about the National Post, which isn't good for anything, even sports.)
What I don't agree with is the overly pessimistic assumption about the necessity of separate aboriginal nations. In what universe has colonial oppression ever eliminated a culture? How long have countries been trying to get rid of Judaism? It's never going to die!
The well-meaning people like yourselves have been too afraid to mix the Indian and the European. Can't you see that you're proceeding from the assumption that the Indian must naturally lose out? When Rome conquered Greece, the effect was to Hellenize the empire. Do we fail to see the impact of the Iroquois Six Nations on the American constitution?
Whether you decry it as assimilation or choose to laud it as hybridization, evolutionary change -- intermarriage, interconnection, interdependence -- is what ALWAYS happens when tribes share a territory.
This is one country moving forward. Any other view, especially one that this is several dozen or hundred separate micro communities, is totally ridiculous.
G West
5 years ago
My view about the National Post absolute accord with yours
The suggestion about reading material was directed at RON erwin (IAMC) not you yammer - I can see where the confusion arose...
Where have I ever said or implied anything of the sort?
I don't think there's been much cultural sharing - and as for sharing the territory - that isn't the way I view Canadian history at all.
Yours’ and Gordon Campbell's ideas might work if we were willing to actually give the Indians a real mulligan.
I think though, on the redo we'd find it a lot tougher to get away with stealing the continent a second time.
So, in the interim and waiting for that redo - I think it's up to First Nations to decide HOW they want to live on whatever bits of their land we decide to give back...as to what's totally ridiculous, I think self-contained self-sufficiency and living off the land may become pretty damn important in the next 50 years...
Sorry if you thought my remarks to IAMC were in any way meant for you – you are a much more intelligent and thoughtful interlocutor than he is – I doubt he read the agreement text anyway.
Yammer
5 years ago
Afraid to mix
You didn't say that in so many words, Gwest. However, that's pretty much what it means (I think) to support the idea of distinct band territories. It means that Group X, if you are born or married into it, receives certain privilages and assumes certain duties on a specific piece of land within Canada. (And that Group X member gets nothing if he or she chooses to go to the city.)
How is that not segregation?
Please understand that I am all for voluntary associations. It's this "being born into a group" thing that has an unsavoury connotation.
G West
5 years ago
last words for now
Ron (yammer):
I think family and clan associations are far more important in some cultures that others. Some societies worship emperors and pay all their allegiance to them - that hasn't always worked out so well either, now has it?
I'm not saying it isn't difficult and that's why the only solution we seem to be able to come up with involves money...but, truly, I think there's a case to be made for mostly independent communities - especially ones who had a long tradition of living on and of the land. The Haida are a good example...and, for us to criticize the First Nations' tradition of land-holding is a bit thick too. 80% of the young people in Vancouver can't afford to buy even a piece of the air in a 30th floor condo while the tiny proportion of individuals who do own property want to hang onto it largely tax free, forever.
So much of this issue depends upon where you're coming from.
As for the group identification, I think there may have been a time in the past - before we killed, starved and forced these people into camps (because that's what Indian Reservations were) when melding and ' voluntary association' and assimilation might have worked. The native kids in the school I went to weren’t treated as though they were very ‘welcome’ at all for that matter. I had all this out with a case of beer with Bill Wilson in college some time ago – he pretty well convinced me we haven’t been much help…
Anyway, gotta go - hope you understand a bit of where I'm coming from… just one more quick observation: our methods of succession and inheritance - given the lip service we pay to equity and opportunity - don't make a very pretty picture either...
kootcoot
5 years ago
How Many Faces of Eve?
G-Man, just how many people is/are Ron/Mabel/Yammer/IAMClueless etc. anyway?
Fogotwillingate
5 years ago
It is impossible to believe
It is impossible to believe that an integral tribal political unit ever existed across the Georgia. If anything, they would have been warring parties.
As for proof of land basis of the coastal Salish group, integrality is beyond doubt because European settlers used a path extending from the US to Vancouver. In fact, there is a marker for the "Indian Trail" (an offensive term) on a power station in White Rock. Remnants of the Trail existed in the 'sixties. Ergo: why do the "water people" claim White Rock's Semiahmoo Band of Salish? Of interest is the fact that Semiahmoo produced a couple of prominent native attornies.
Take this out of the political arena; seek court direction and ENSURE that all parties are properly represented.
IAMC
5 years ago
No end to it
How can we get people out of the way, like Mr. West, who can go on and on, without offering any practical solution, but continue to try and complicate the argument until the cows fly home, which is exactly what we expect from someone who is typical of Canadians who do not want to face the music.
The music is, that we can not continue to have two classes of Canadians.
Are we a country or not?
This apartheid system, where nobody on lands designated as killing fields for Indians, is allowed to enjoy Canadian Human Rights, or the freedom that private property rights avail.
I can only assume the average Canadian view of the solutions to this issue are very cruel and ignorant, if not racist.
All Canadians should be equal.
Nobody should be able to dominate others based on race.
We are not helping Indians by our liberal method of solutions to problems like this.
We need to get it over with.
Perhaps legislating equality is the way to go, but how come when people like me ask for this, we are called uncaring neocons.
We are not uncaring.
We only see that the way we are approaching this offers no solution, ever.
One Canada, one Canadian citizen, one set of laws for all, on set of justice for all.
What is so radical about this? Nothing.
We are sick of stupid liberals putting their head in the sand.
We all know, that if we offered every first nations, aboriginal, Metis, Inuit person 100 million dollars each to sign a waiver letting us off the hook forever, that they would not go for it.
How dumb are we?
this extracion of our funds is expected to go on forever.
My solution is to enact a Not Withstanding Clause and force Canadians to accept Indians as equal Canadians in every way.
And by every way, I mean that reserves would be dissolved. We would work out a legislated method of dividing property rights, so all could prosper, dissolve The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and carry on with life with all Canadians on a level playing field into the future.
In the short term, we should all realize that cannot continue to listen to this endless Mumbo Jumbo, like those posted by G West and others, and listen to people like me, that are interested in getting this behind us, like Europe has.
Look into the Caledonia crisis to see what I am talking about.
I cannot express my disgust with the wimpy Canadian courts, politicians and bureaucratic that are making their living on the misery of Indians.
I am pissed of by the fact that my view is considered radical or racist, when in my heart, I see people like Garth as a problematic representative of the former liberal elite that want to exploit Indians to enrich their own lives.
G West
5 years ago
Fogotwillingate
We'll have to wait, I'm almost certain, for the legislation...I expect it will have a dispute settlement mechanism in it. The session starts in October.
Have a look at this legislation - I'm quite certain the Tsawwassen Legislation will have a similar set of clauses.
This is the Federal Law - there is a similar Provincial one although it was the provincial one that Gordon Campbell challenged in court.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb992-e.htm
G West
5 years ago
what mumbo jumbo was that Ron?
I'm sorry Ron (IAMC), respectfully, I have no idea about what you're talking.
If you think untangling 2 1/2 centuries of mistakes and crimes and racism (and more in Eastern Canada) is as simple as that then there is no point in my bothering with your views.
In addition, if you didn't realize it by now, I don't like being called a liberal.
I'm a radical - I want to get back to the roots of what ails this society.
You can look up the definition of 'radical' if you have a dictionary.
If you think a society like ours where the vast majority of wealth and property is now in the hands of tiny elite can be fixed by simply saying 'poof' and blowing up the Indian Act then I'm afraid I can't help you. Moreover, you can't help solve these problems.
G West
5 years ago
How did Europe get this behind them Ron?
Please, fill me in. In three short paragraphs please describe the 20th century for me - and emphasize what a stunning success it was in the problem-solving department.
I'll be waiting.
RickW
5 years ago
IAMC
That's a good one!
Someone sets up camp in your backyard, then proceeds to insist that you divvy up said property "fairly"............
kootcoot
5 years ago
The Acme of Assininity
Where can a person even begin with this gem from the man of many names.
So doesn't everyone get it, no more Mumbo Jumbo. Just listen to people like Ron, or IAMC, or Yammer or Mabel, or are those even different people? Ron, one more drink max, and it's nighty night. What a presumptuous "expert." Impaired typing is often not pretty.................
But at least you have a solution:
That and 100 Million Dollars each ought to fix everything right up. Oh do we have to accept you as equal as well?
And your disgust.....
That's good, because I'm pretty sure it would be pretty darn disgusting and I ain't drunk enough for that much disgust!
IAMC
5 years ago
It's a scam
Who parked in who's backyard Rick?
Which bands were the last ones standing where they where when some kind of arbitrary time line was designed by someone, who we don't know, who were in power hundreds of years ago, which have resulted in a unworkable framework, that will be forever exist, unless someone breaks the log jam, with dynamite if necessary, and gets us to the reality that we can't have dozens of autonomous nations, all feeding off our treasury, who, if given private property rights, and human rights, would do just fine.
Nobody was first.
Let's get over that.
The rest of the world has.
What is the problem with a truth and reconciliation committee sorting this out?
And by this I mean finality, forever, always, one Canada for all.
You Indian killing people shouldn't be able to hide behind arguments that are mentally retarded, and dangerous to us all.
You can't let a dead dog lay, because it's becoming so obvious that there are solutions, and we won't accept anymore lame excuses from radicals who have nothing to lose or gain by aboriginal emancipation.
kootcoot
5 years ago
Which is it Ron?
So what's it gonna be, Ron? Notwithstanding Clause and 100 Million Bucks each or Dynamite. Or maybe all three would work even better. Sheeesh.....
G West
5 years ago
A kind of
final solution I guess...
I've heard it all before Ron - I'm still waiting for that essay on the 'European' method by the way.
IAMC
5 years ago
I am a dinosaur
So I guess I was here first.
So I am posthumously asking for reciprocity from you.
I can't imagine trying to sort out the first to come mentality for our UN global world. Yet it's up to us to live up to this impossible affirmation no. 3 the says
" Affirming further that all doctrines, policy and practices based on advocating superiority of people's or individuals on the basis of national origin, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust."
So, I say, let all Canadians follow this to the end that we all deserve.
G West
5 years ago
Still waiting Ron
What are you so afraid of anyway?
IAMC
5 years ago
I am not afraid
Unless there is a big opposition to social justice for all. All equal. Nobody superior. Nobody.
Is that clear?
Does that need to explained and justified?
How can we feel guilty for something that happened generations ago?
We are liberal Canadians.
We should be able to reconcile our differences, right?
Move over. The approach toward this situation, by the previous 30 year administration, who acquiesced to the Supreme Court, because they didn't have any balls, have not done single thing towards including first nations peoples, included within our assumed human rights, and the same opportunity for success that we all enjoy.
The only thing standing in the way, is traditional Canadian liberalism.
Please get out of the way of equality for ALL Canadians.
kootcoot
5 years ago
Not even Wacky
BTW Ron who is this?
I'm sorta hazy who was it that formed government for the last thirty years. Obviously not Pee Wee Harper, cuz they are still the "new" government. I don't remember Martin, Chretien, Mulfooney or even Trudeau being in power for thirty years, but then I don't know everything like Ron, IAMC, and their crowd seem to do.
By the way Ron - everyone is supposed to "acquiesce" to the Supreme Court or courts in general. They "interpret" the law when necessary and those who believe in the "rule of law" (not the Campbell Government for example) then abide by and follow decisions of the court. With fascists like the Campbell crowd "rule of law" isn't important, unless people come after them with weapons, then it's whoa Nelly, "I want my legal protections".
RickW
5 years ago
Precedence
Using the juvenile excuse that "well, you weren't here first either", is merely acquiescing to the dictum that "might is right", and we are supposedly moving beyond that brute mentality.
"A nation of laws, and not of people"
realisticman
5 years ago
The Majority Prevails
IAMC
Seems reasonable and when speaking with many small L liberals they are often in agreement with all said above. Yet, eyes roll, eyebrows are raised and resignation that this huge federal and provincial 'land-claims' industry is too deeply entrenched to budge. Those that imagine the US has a problem with a legal system that is quick to litigate should take a glance at the Canadian land-claims industry if they want to really see a quagmire of paperwork and legalese embroiled in a wounded and guilt-ridden psychology.
dr evil
5 years ago
rolling eyeballs
You use those "eyes roll" "rolling eyes" "raised eyebrows" descriptions a whole lot realman
..very effective. Small l liberals are notorious for eye rolling.
kootcoot
5 years ago
Well is it?
Is R/man quoting and critiquing IAMC really just a monologue in disguise? Or just a case of the lame leading the blind?
G West
5 years ago
I dunno koot
I guess Ron wants everybody to ante up all the gold, silk suits, cars, cash, silver-ware and other booty - and dump it into the Marianas Trench. Then we'll dynamite all the built infrastructure, tear up the roads and shut down the phones, hydro and hospitals - throw all the keys to the remaining single family dwellings in a big pile and blow a whistle to start the hard-scrabble contest - Bare knuckle cage match of all against all - but everyone's the same…..
He couldn't possibly mean anything else could he?
Damnedest thing I've ever heard.
As for r'man - who knows what he's thinking - I'd like to suggest they both read Jose Saramago's "Blindness"
kootcoot
5 years ago
Sounds excellent Gavin:
Sounds excellent Gavin:
Yep, sounds good to me, I'll just go surfing or kayaking. I was getting tired of all that crummy infrastructure and living in houses anyway! Can I keep a couple guitars?
RickW
5 years ago
Thing about IAMC is....
....he sees "them" being made into the image of "us". As we are guests of "theirs" in this great land, shouldn't it be "when in Rome...."?
G West
5 years ago
koot
As long as they're acoustic. Them electric rigs won't be much use for about half a century... with luck.
realisticman
5 years ago
kootkoot
Are you able to riff on what it is that you despise about about racial and social equality and why you consider that this is an impossibility in Canada?
G West
5 years ago
I'm all for social and racial equality R'man
However, it has to be based upon some kind of real economic equality of opportunity.
As long as we are part of a system that amounts to class warfare (and those are Warren Buffett's words, not mine) and we use tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy as the favoured instrument of social change while we supporting a system where companies like Nike and Wal-Mart can spent 1/10th of one percent of the retail cost of their goods on labour then I won't have much trouble finding material to riff on...DUDE!
I believe in the kind of equality and equality of opportunity that actually MEAN something. How about you?
What do you believe in R’man – cause the problems are getting bigger and the unfairness is growing by the hour. Lets create a world where there’s some actual hope for those extra 300,000 children who’ll survive till their fifth birthday because of Bill Gates’ guilty conscience.
RickW
5 years ago
R/M
It's been done, several times, on this thread as well as others..........
G West
5 years ago
errata 2nd para should read:
As long as we are part of a system that amounts to class warfare (and those are Warren Buffett's words, not mine) and we use tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy as the favoured instrument of social change while we support a system where companies like Nike and Wal-Mart can spend 1/10th of one percent of the retail cost of their goods on labour, then I won't have much trouble finding material to riff on...DUDE!
realisticman
5 years ago
Mmmmm
RickW
It's been done, several times, on this thread as well as others..........
Are you sure you want to stand by that RickW? You may well wish to rephrase.
I see your bosom buddy GWest would rather avoid the question and divert the issue by blabbering on about the rich and the poor, as he sees it. Deciphering GWest,
However, it has to be based upon some kind of real economic equality of opportunity.
we surmise that racial and social equality must take a backseat until the utopia of some other equalities are settled first. So the message is clear, from you, hold them land claims settlements, first we have to fix the capitalistic system, but good.
If, West, you say real economic equality of opportunity, is not to be based on social equality and the capitalistic system has to be slowed down since the end is neigh and we're all going to hell in a hand basket because the planet can only take so much, where are these opportunities going to come from, simply higher taxes for the 'rich'?
realisticman
5 years ago
It doesn't matter
I get the drift. Gordo came up with this plan so it has to be bad.
G West
5 years ago
I'm not the one who avoids the hard questions
I'm not the one who avoids the hard questions r'man - or the one who reverts to personal references à la Ron Erwin - instead of actually coming to grips with the fundamental problems behind the philosophy you ascribe to.
Which is just another riff on the self-same philosophy that took this land from its inhabitants (owners if you prefer) in the first place. Remember?
Whether or not the end of the capitalistic system is 'nigh' or not, I suspect you and yours will have a few more years and few more pounds of flesh to take before the annual toll in unnecessary deaths of children 1 - 5 worldwide reaches zero.
You and Gates may think getting that number down from 10 million annually to, what was it, 9,700,000 is a great achievement for capitalism - I don't. It is nothing more than a further testament to complete and utter failure. What kind of scandal do you think it would be if 9.7 million Canadians suddenly started dropping dead each year?
The opportunities are there - but you and your friends would rather crow about your profits than meet those challenges. I told you Peter Singer has spelled out exactly what is necessary to meet the challenges but you're not even man enough to send me an email so I can send you his essay:
Moreover, what about Buffett and his acknowledgment that you and he are allies in CLASS WARFARE – or is that kind of honesty a little too close to the bone as well?
I’ll be checking my email. I use that as a kind of indicator of exactly how serious any of you guys actually are…..
alive
5 years ago
too many people!
As usual we are drifting away from the subject!
But why not explore this little input here:
What indeed will you do with even more people in this world?
The main problems are that we all consume too much, and that we are overpopulated!
If Canada need more population there is an abuncance of people ready to come here.
What Gates should have contributed is condoms and sterilization!
RickW
5 years ago
R/M
As I said to IAMC a few posts up:
That aspect must be addressed first and foremost. Once that has been settled in a "fair and equitable manner", we can then talk about equality. But right now, we talk "equality" down to the FN, and not across the table with them.
Sort of reminds me of that old saw:
"In the USSR, everyone is equal. But those who join the communist party are more equal than the others."
Similarly, when you become a white man here, you become "more equal"......
Sylvia Stephens
5 years ago
Greetings from a disgruntled Nisga'a
It's only me again. Hope everyone had a good weekend!
These entries that I read, how did I ever miss out on posting? Usually, I jump on the bandwagon and rant and rave but, this time, I am the bottom of the totem pole.
I enjoy reading articles and I broaden my knowledge as if your age category is the younger set, I can honestly say that you could become skilled politicians as for now, all we ever observe is corruption amongst our leaders, near and far. There is going to be a huge seminar in Prince George on Sept. 23, dealing with the governments prodding with voters from the Indian Band, changing to votes to yes. Excuse me but I think it is the Dene tribe? I have heard so much about it and I will drive down to be an observer as I have been unofficially invited to attend. If they don't push us out the door, we will be survivors as we are champions on declaring the Nisga'a Treaty as dysfunctional. I don't want to ruin my blessed day by thinking these thoughts but I am just giving you a lil hint of my views and thoughts. Keep the fire burning!
realisticman
5 years ago
auspicious company
GWest
Oh I say Garth, did Mr. Buffett mention me personally. Oh, I'm blushing.
I'm sorry but I cannot send you an e-mail personally. I just don't have time for pen pals, even though you've begged over and over again. I also get quite enough spam too, thank you very much.
RickW
5 years ago
Sylvia
Which means that you support everyone else!
IAMC
5 years ago
The Declaration
Affirmation number three of the UN declaration.
" Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practises based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences is racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust, "
How many ways can that be interpreted?
G West
5 years ago
Now with the insults? Oy vey!
Don't flatter yourself r'man - I just want to help with your neglected education. I guess you really don't care enough to even consider another way of looking at the world
Some people appear to be happier when they don’t consider the consequences of their beliefs - at least Warren Buffett understands what he is a part of and that puts him quite a distance up on most global capitalists...
By the way, you’re getting personal again - is that all you have left?
The offer's still open - I check that email address a couple of times every week if you change your mind.
As George Bernard Shaw put it, r'man, in The Devil's Disciple, "The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity."
RickW
5 years ago
IAMC
Doesn't much matter when those uttering the words have, by and large, gathered up all the marbles for themselves........then insist that the game also be played by their rules!
IAMC
5 years ago
Truth and Reconciliation
South Africa got over their racial issues with the appointment of The Truth and Reconciliation committee.
I suggest we enact the Not Withstanding Clause given to us in The Charter of Freedom and Rights, to suspend all existing decisions by The Supreme Court and Parliament regarding First Nations issues, and have exhausted consultations until we can work out an act that can be passed in Parliament, to the satisfaction of all parties, and enter into a binding resolution, that puts this matter behind us forever.
G West
5 years ago
South Africa...are you sure?
Worse Than War
Are you sure this is a model you'd like to follow?
Here's some more statistics from S.Africa:
Assaults 535,461 [2nd of 57]
Car thefts 99,963 [10th of 55]
Kidnappings 11 kidnappings [9th of 9]
Murders 21,995 [4th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.496008 per 1,000 people [2nd of 62]
Murders with firearms 31,918 [1st of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.719782 per 1,000 people [1st of 32]
Rapes 53,008 [2nd of 65]
Rapes (per capita) 1.19538 per 1,000 people [1st of 65]
Total crimes 3,422,740 [5th of 60]
The day anyone suspends all existing decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding anything is the day we kiss goodbye to democraccy Ron...sorry.
Try again.
IAMC
5 years ago
Spiders Web
Have you ever tried to untangle a spiderweb?
You can't, it's impossible. Yet we are surrounded by a spiderweb. Do we simply suffocate or do we defend ourselves?
I found the only way to get rid of a spiderweb is to burn it.
That is why I suggest a Truth and Reconciliation Commission dedicated to finding a way, agreeable to all parties, to create a Canada where everyone is equal, within one border.
The Supreme Court rulings regarding aboriginal issues must be suspended by triggering The NotWithstanding Clause, granted to us for just this type of situation. Quebec has already used this mechanism in the Charter, why can't we?
It's a serious enough matter.
How can we proceed with this cloud over our heads.
I am not happy to leave this situation as it is.
We will be dealing with this forever unless we change directions.
Why would we not be able to explore other ways to get this forever behind us, rather than being gutless people forced to live with a guilt trip that we had absolutely no control over.
G West
5 years ago
Who is 'us' RON?
I'm sorry my friend but you really DON'T have a clue.
The notwithstanding clause is a very specific remedy and it's not available to individuals...just governments. Further, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is different since s. 33 of the Charter makes it possible for a legislature to enact legislation “notwithstanding” certain provisions of the Charter. S. 33 may be applied to fundamental freedoms (s. 2), (the freedom of religion and conscience, the freedom of expression and assembly, and the freedom of association), legal rights (ss. 7 –14), and equality rights (s. 15). In contrast, s. 33 cannot be invoked with respect to democratic rights (ss. 3 – 5), mobility rights (s. 6), or the rights regarding the official languages of Canada (ss. 16 - 23). And also remember that a legislature’s ability to ignore the rights affected by s. 33 is still restricted in two ways: first, the legislature must expressly declare that the legislation shall apply notwithstanding the Charter provision (s. 33(1)), thereby risking public condemnation; and second, after a period of five years, if the legislature wants the rights-violating measure to continue, it is required to re-enact the measure (s. 33(5)).
So I'm afraid, even if you could convince a legislature to use s 33 in such a ridiculous way, it wouldn't be the permanent solution you envision Ron.
Back to the drawing board my friend.
IAMC
5 years ago
Charter Clallenge
Upon reading the Charter again, I still have confidence that the Govt. of Canada, not me, could write an act that could still bring a final solution to the ongoing dispute between the Govt. and Aboriginals. I don't see language in the Charter that would preclude this.
I still think a Truth and Reconciliation group, appointed by both parties, within fourteen days, with consequences, for all sides, being ajudicated by the UN, in order to get to a solution, so we can avoid discussions and endless articles, occupations, blockages, jail, mistrust, ill will and greed.
G West
5 years ago
Ron, buddy....
The 'new Canadian Government' wouldn't even sign the UN resolution...what are you smoking?
kootcoot
5 years ago
Great Advice Ron!
Would that be anything like the "final solution" that was used to create racial/ethnic harmony in Germany during the mid-twentieth century. I'll agree, it's pretty final, at least for those members of what ever ethnic group that are "dealt with."
Visualizing the image of you, Ron, determining what language in the Charter or anywhere else actually means or precludes or not, is a humorous way to start my week. I mean you can't even seem to remember what your handle/screen ID is from one comment to the next, must less understand anyone's comment.
realisticman
5 years ago
Been there, Done that
GWest
Au Contraire,
Singer's penchant for provocation extends to more mundane matters, like everyday charity. A recent article about Singer in The New York Times revealed that the philosopher gives one-fifth of his income to famine-relief agencies. "From when I first saw pictures in newspapers of people starving, from when people asked you to donate some of your pocket money for collections at school," he mused, "I always thought, 'Why that much — why not more?"'
I guess, just like Buffett, Gates, Oprah, Bono, etc., charity seems the way to go, through philanthropy. Just a more personal type of foreign aid. Or, perhaps since you don't believe in charity or philanthropy, West, you also do not believe in foreign aid.
By the way, were you rooting for Pasok? Yesterday Greece elected another conservative majority. Will you be celebrating, or drowning your sorrows, with a nice crisp retsina?
kootcoot
5 years ago
To the Mod
Feel free to delete one of the entries titled "Great Advice, Ron!" They are identical as far as I can tell, and I certainly wasn't double submitting to make a point - indeed I'm not sure what happened, but it only needs to be there once, at most. This could be deleted once this was dealt with also..................
G West
5 years ago
Au Contraire r'man
I see you're still not curious enough to actually take the time to look at Singer's article - which has nothing to do with his more controvercial ideas about animal rights - as I mentioned when I first introduced the subject.
You're several months and a few pounds light my friend but never slow with an ad hominem or out of context remark.
Too bad really... his suggestions are much more along your lines than mine.
I see you're not so busy that you can't find time to spread a few red herrings around the place. Oddly enough, the Greek election probably fits nicely into Naomi Klein's thesis anyway.
Fear is a strong motivator and neo-liberals know exactly how to use it.
btw, I don't drink - from all appearances - it clouds the mind.
Sylvia Stephens
5 years ago
Canada is the lowest on the totem pole for Human Rights
Two more courses start today for me with the University of the Arctic online modules. I will be kep busy with tons of reading and writing and I will make the time to read some postings.
I was told by several Indigienous leaders that Canada refused to sign the Declaration. By not signing it, it shows the whole world that we are not entitled to Human Rights. Just because I speak my mind with political flaws in our Nation, I have been denied 8 jobs with Nisga'a Lisims Government where I was fully qualified and by the time Canadian Human Rights made their decision, they denied that I was discriminated against. I took it to the next level and I made an application to the Federal Court to ask for a Judicial Hearing and I am being treated like, Just Another Indian. Sad, but true. I will not give up my rights to be an equal citizen and damned if I don't.
Sylvia Stephens
5 years ago
I have a right to celebrate and feel proud!
I just have to share with you all my educational update!
Spring 2008, I will receive 2 degrees: Minor degree in Political Science and BA in First Nations Studies.
Scholarships received 2007:
1. New Relationship Trust - $5,000
2. Assembly of First Nations for Political Science Award-$2,000
3. National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation-$1,900
4. First Citizens Fund-$700.
Cheers!
dr evil
5 years ago
I`ve got a case of the "Rons"
Seems really the realistics and the rons imacs whatevers ..what they really want here is to crush anybody maybe having a little hope...yeah crush hope..promote cynicism..and of course spout the old TINA mantra. (There is NO Alternative)..and see ..the Greeks realize this.
Gotta ask `em...at what point did y`all give up?
kootcoot
5 years ago
Medical Advice
Some fiber in your food and some substance in your thinking and you should be cured of both the physical and mental "Rons."
Sylvia Stephens
5 years ago
Interesting article from a US friend..
Toronto lawyer: “Canada has no rights over First Nations”
By LEA STORRY, SRJ Editor 12.SEP.07
A lawyer based in Toronto, Ont. has a very different outlook on the federal law in regards to Aboriginals. N. Kate Kempton was a speaker at the Tu Beta Ts’ena – Water Is Life water conference held in Fort Smith last month.
“I spoke about the duty to consult under the law,” explained Kempton. “I have a very different take on the relationship between the Crown (Canada) and its relationship with Aboriginals.”
Kempton stated the Crown has no right to impose its laws over Aboriginal people because “Aboriginals are not subject to Canadian law.”
According to the lawyer, way back in the 1700s, the British asserted their authority over what would become Canada – but only over the settlers – not Aboriginals.
“There are only three ways the Crown would have power here. Number one, to conquer all Aboriginal people – and that never happened.
“Number two, by settlement. Which means to settle a deserted piece of land that was unoccupied. Clearly this land was heavily settled by people.
“The only other way to get legal right is through the indigenous people ceding rights to the land through treaties. They would have to say ‘We give up our right to self-government’”
The lawyer said Aboriginals understood treaties as a way to share the lands and resources, “but treaty language doesn’t reflect this.”
Since the Crown has no sovereign right over Aboriginals, Kempton explained it is imposed anyway.
“It’s the government of Canada with the money, the police force, etcetera. For things to equal out now – the Crown would have to recognize the indigenous people having the same power as the Crown.”
Kempton is with the firm Olthuis Kleer Townshend, which is based in Toronto. She said she has many First Nation clients and believes Aboriginals are more invested in the earth and resources like water then former “settlers” like her.
“Aboriginal people are more committed to their land and its part of their sacred law to protect it. If they’re not able to make decisions with the Crown, there’s a far greater chance we’ll lose the water.”
She’s not the only lawyer with this outlook. However, Kempton added she wasn’t taught this in law school, but picked it up after asking questions of her peers and clients.
“This is my professional opinion. I realize it’s complicated, but in one way simple – it’s a raw abuse of power by Canada and its wrong.”
dorothy
5 years ago
UN wasnt't that....?
Why are we even bothering discussing what's on the books of the UN? Wasn't that the agency that passed 23 resolutions addressing the same issue, and then passed more resolutions lambasting those who took steps to enforce the 23 decisions? It's a big joke, unfortuantely for everyone on Earth, but let's at least not kid ourselves...
RickW
5 years ago
Good One, Sylvia!
dorothy
5 years ago
Not recently at all
"Nice bunch we've joined. pee wee should be proud - what a meaningful gesture it is to vote against a non-binding exercise that says, in essence, that we believe in some self-determination and don't believe in genocide."
'We' have been members of that bunch for a long time, and it is actaully refreshing that we now finally put our mouth where our money is. Maybe we can get an actual debate instead of the stupid, hypocritical stonewalling we have gotten so used to. All is not well, but draconian words in our already rightsgroups-overloaded constitution is just a dumb idea. In the current climate, all we will do is try to find ways of circumventing such provisions, since no real attitude change will have happened. Why do people still fall for the idea that such things can be managed and controlled through words on paper? What we need is already in the constitution - just as it was before the last slew of special groups got crammed in there for 'special protection'. It actaully doesn't say anywhere, that only the groups specifically mentioned have rights! It says they are mentioned 'in particular', likely because for many years, people thought that discrimination based on race, creed, gender etc., etc., were legitimate. Now we know better, ad nauseam, but we still don't feel like respecting it, and more words are not going to change that.
In fact, the demand that this mess (treaty negotiations) should be dealt with in any special way different from other such messes is highly condescending, patronizing, and racist. It is just another reminder, that groups competing for 'deals' should co-operate prior to presenting their respective cases, instead of working at cross-purposes. Why should indigenous people not be held to the same standards as any other people conducting business in this aspect? They are not 'lesser people', are they? I think not.