I can never figure out whose side I'm on in these disputes. As a fourth generation Canadian I am just as much a "native" as anyone living in Canada today. Are all the generations of Germans born after the Nazi's responsible for the actions of some of their ancestors? I don't think so. Why should I not be entittled to the same rights as another Canadians based on what happened generations ago. Do all the citizens of the world owe Adam and Eve and their decendants money because we populated the earth after them (don't think too closely on that one as it only goes around and around!)? Where should it stop?
What I can see is that there must be some kind of releif for those raised in residential schools as well as their children. This was a wrong that was inflicted upon the First Nations that requires some kind of assistance but, is money to individuals the answer? How can money make up for the loss of culture. I think the money given to individuals should have been used to restore the native culture and to provide supports to get the first nations up to speed with the rest of society. Change is the normal course of life and to steadfastly refuse to adapt to current circumstances is simply not acceptable. Darwin would have called that lack of evolution, causing the end of that society. Should all people who suffered some kind of emotional abuse through either their ancestores or through childhood sexual abuse be rewarded money as a cure for their angst? It is time for the First Nations to recognize that they are just citizens of the world and that life is hard for everyone and to continue to allow these fellow Canadians to demand special treatment is to enable their reluctance to face reality and join society.

realist2:
Your post is so full of misapprehensions.
Survivors of abuse at residential schools
are entitled to compensation because the gov't has deemed itself (with Courts' guidance) a facilitator of the abusers. The gov't set up the system that not only allowed it but which apparently protected abusers for decades. Not every native child was sexually abused. The compensation for abuse must go to specific individuals. Your call for assistance to restore culture is a somewhat separate, though important issue. It's not a case of one or the other, but both.

I am puzzled as to how you've arrived at the belief that our aboriginals are reluctant to "join society", and they "refuse to adapt to current circumstances", and are resistant to "change". You apparently have paid no attention to what native leaders/spokespersons have been saying.
The historical fact is, natives have been shut out. Contary to what you suggest,they WANT change, they want IN. They want a say as to how resources are used in their traditional territories (the Supreme Court supports them on this), they want those resources to benefit and sustain their communities by providing an economic base and jobs on a sustainable basis. They want to play an integral, important role in the Canadian economy (this has previously been denied them), while maintaining cultural traditions.

The other canard I see in your post is the idea that the wrongs were done "generations ago", so why should current generations be responsible. This denies the fact that the injustices have continued right through your lifetime and are still here TODAY. This is current events, not ancient history. And the Supreme Court says you are wrong. Thankfully, the situation has begun to turn around, due to our courts, politicians, and the general public being willing to see Canada evolve. I think it's YOU who is resistant to change.

Your example of present day Germans, "are they responsible?". Yes, they are responsible for ensuring Jews in Germany are no longer persecuted, that laws against hate speech and neo-Nazism are enforced, that Jewish families who had their property stolen by the Nazi gov't have their property restored, that neo-Nazi propaganda is treated as socially unacceptable. To their credit, in recent years,on occasion, ordinary Germans have marched in the streets by the tens of thousands against neo-Nazism. Obviously, they DO feel a responsibilty.
...Unfortunately, the rise of militant Islam is having some unfortunate effects, as far dividing ethnic groups from one another in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe (and in Canada now too). A sad development.But this is another issue.

Realist2... Incidentally, a Jewish Nazi hunter named Simon Wiesenthal thought so. In fact he made the statement that "Germans should be hated forever".

Wow - the buck has to stop somewhere on what is owed to people or even oppressed people of history.

But on the subject at hand.... The native fishing and hunting rights are indeed protected by the Supreme Court of Canada.
However!
There is definitely an element of unfairness to non-native people in both areas.

Besides the obvious, what about the modern fishing and hunting equipment invented by non-natives which has made the native access a helluva lot easier?
With the modern equipment used, the natives can end up fishing the Fraser dry before non-natives have a chance to lower their nets.

It probably all boils down to simply realizing that the world progresses.
Britain has been invaded numerous times in its early history - does that mean that the Romans-Gauls-Vikings own Britain or their descendents owe Britain an apology?

Gimme a break!

Bobb999:
Thank you for your response. I still do not believe that throwing money at residential school survivours is the answer. I think (Although this is only my perception as it did not happen to me) that I would be insulted to think that the government believes it can bribe it's way out of responsibility with respect to residential schools. The money will serve no real purpose in the healing of the damage done through residential schools.I fully support a program which would effectively educate both the First Nations people as well as their fellow Canadians and promote healing which would allow progress instead of stagnation.
Sadly, racism is rampent in many peoples lives despite what they might think. I am disabled and treated like dirt by both the provincial and federal governments. While this is not the same as the First Nations people I am well aware that racism and bigotry are rampent. The only cure for this is education.
Everything I have today, I fought for and while my life is far from affluent. I do have the knowledge and satisfaction of knowing that I have acheived all I have through hard work and not entittlement.
I have worked in poverty assistance societies and have had the opportunity to meet a wide variety of First Nations people. There is a prevailing "Poor me" attitude in a great deal of native youth that I have seen. The result is a group of people who have lost their desire to fight for themselves. (This group is not alone as unfortunately, today, we must all fight against the greed of corporate dictatorship in society, just as Islam is doing now). I do feel for this group as they truely have lost their way but, it remains the responsibility of every individual in our current society to strive to improve their lives. This may be considered a racist view but, I can also cite a case of a gentleman here in our city who has worked hard to get ahead. Through the developement of a logging company and other business enterprises he has become a prominent citizen in our community. He agrees that nothing was "given to him" and he earned everything he has obtained. He laments the loss of direction by the youth of his culture as he beleives that they have been the victims of constantly being told they are entittled to something that does not exist. This contrast is what I meant by saying the first Nations Community must join our society.
Even if land claims are settled and monies paid what will become of this money? What exactly will it accomplish. Will it give the First Nations people back their culture? Will it serve to uplift their children to the point of self sufficiency, or will it only serve as a temporary bandaid to prolong the attitude of entittlemet, seen in some first Nations people, until the money is gone? The only group who will gain any real advantage will be the governments who can finally wash their hands of the First Nations land claims and provide corporations more gaurantees that there will be no more "Interference from the First Nations Communities"
Traditional lands are not "owned" by anyone. Land ownership was established by the English nobles who claimed possession of the commons for themselves. To say that the land is theirs or anyones is to propegate this lie. Yes, the first nations used the lands upon which they lived to provide for themselves but they knew they did not own it.When you call traditional lands as "theirs" you now adapt the current misconception of land ownership.

It is constant selective adaptations of current social morals that tends to undermine the First Nations arguements. We want our traditional land back to use as we see fit. We want to act as stewards of the lands to ensure the survival of nature for our youth. We want the right to put up billboards along highways to earn money. This contrasting message cast doubt on the real motives of the First nations.
Have the First Nations been treated unfairly? Yes they have. Do they deserve compensation for this? Only if everyone has been given compensation. The First Nations of Caledonia want compensation for the land used by the developers. Fine, but all the other citizens of Caledonia are then also entittled to compensation by the government who told them they could live in that area and move freely around their neighborhood. Then all Canadians will deserve compensation to make up for those compensated for those who demandeded compensation. What a twisted mess.
where does it end?

bob999

Well said..

The author's contention that "the characterization of the fisheries as "race-based" is wrong" is misleading at best. Some professor. What the decision does is reiterate the difference between an exclusive "fishery" and a "licence" issued to a group for a particular time and place (par.55-60). That some of these groups are, in fact, race-based is not questioned.

realist2:

It is interesting that both aboriginal people and the disabled are specifically mentioned in the Charter. Would you be willing to give up the rights it grants you? Employers and commercial building owners could make a good case that being forced to accomodate the disabled imposes
undue hardship on them just as the commercial fisherfolk argue that the aboriginal fishery is not fair to them.

Yammer:
Did you miss the paragraph explaining that the Musquuam, Tsawassen, and Burrard bands are Aboriginal people, not people with black hair and brown skin. The fishery was only open to members of these bands, not all First Nations people, as a 'race-based' fishery would have to be. Isn't this discrimination against the Chilcotin, Coast Salish, Haida, Shuswap and other bands? Of course not, because these bands are not aboriginal to the area where the fishery occured.

Canada is becoming a race and linguistic based society. Not native - second class citizen. not French - second class citizen.

Commercial fishing is now based on race, no question.

There is no Canadian Identity, First nation, anglophone, francophone, and hyphenated Canadians. It will all come to grief and I'm afraid in a few generations, the ugliness of ethinic cleansing will sweap through what's left of Canada.

Oh by the way, before the Europeans enterd the scene, when one first nations group wanted another first nations land and/or resources, they went to war, and killed whoever stood in their way.

So what's the difference now? None, just politicians trying to reinvent history to suit their own needs.

Not once has an aboriginal community made any claim based on their supposed "race". First, there are no "races", that's just a prescientific and genetically entirely unjustified division.

Second the claims have always and only been based on pre-existing rights that were inherited under Canadian law.

The "race-based" canard was invented by racists and is propogated by them. If you believe it you are, by that fact alone, a racist.

You know, whatever happened to the "we stole it fair and square doctrine?

Aboriginal rights are a seriously mixed bagged.

I've met too many aboriginals who eploit their native status: they don't pay taxes (even then they live off reserve.) I've known people to buy things using aboriginal status for non-aboriginal friends...

So, I'm just saying it's a mixed bag. Sometimes, I think that doctrine of "we stole it fair and square" would be good. It'd be better if we didn't prop up the reserves with cash injections.

I've also known a lot of great aboriginal people doing hard work and improving lives. Funny enough, these have been people living in the city and working in the modern economy.

darcy,

The government created the law that created the reserves and then it induced the aboriginal people to live on them so that others could benefit from the use of the other 98% of the land. And benefit they have.

I believe that whatever we pay to support these reserves and their occupants is dirt cheap rent on a country as prosperous as Canada. Maybe "Capitalist" could tell us the the Return On Investment of tax dollars spent on First Nations over the years compared to Canada's cumulative GDP since 1867. Bet it's pretty sweet.

The myth of race-based policy may be crumbling fast, but racism is clearly alive and well amongst us and will find another hook from which to vent its putrid spleen.

Fanshaw: You're attempting to say that there is no racism involved in licenses given to specific bands simply because all Aborginal people are not invited to participate (save as members of the commercial and sport fisheries).

However, band membership is by (native) race and kin-ties. It's not a club you can join by writing a test and paying dues. It is a nationality granted by blood, as with the Federal Republic of Germany.

I'm Japanese-Canadian. Suppose the licence was given only to the Japanese-Canadian Citizen's Association. That would be a racist decision even though the benefit did not flow to all Asians.

Ed Seedhouse: I've read Ashley Montague too, and technically I would agree. I am using the term "race" in its commonly-understood, sociological sense.

To dispell criticism of the undeniable racial aspects of this fishery as racist is a contemptable smear and the tactic of a coward.

Er, that was excessive. I will say, it is a smear. I regret saying "coward," since the whole anonymity of the internet thing makes it difficult for you to seek satisfaction.

Yammer,

What argument could the Japanese Canadians possibly make that would induce the gov't to grant them an exclusive right to fish? None that I can think of.

Aboriginal people have argued that they were here before colonization, had their own societies and territories, never ceded their land or rights, etc and the courts have agreed. Their argument, however, is based on time, location and possesion, not race.

The treaty commision has just decided that the town where I live, Williams Lake, was settled illegally in that land pre-emptions were granted to settlers depite the fact that there was a pre-existing native village here at the time. This was and is a violation of the rules that existed at that time. So, technically, the Williams Lake Indian Band still owns all of the land in town and will eventually be compensated for it, but not because of their race. It's because the Crown violated its own rules.

Fanshaw,

So, it's not racism because the band has a better argument than my admittedly absurd hypothesis? In discrimination law as it is practiced in Canada, it's the "adverse differential" effect that matters, not the motivation behind the action -- the action being the granting of licences.

I'll concede that the quasi-national status of First Nations makes them a different situation than, say, Japanese-Canadians, who enjoy no entrenched special rights by treaty. And the historical argument has merit. Nonetheless, race is still in the equation, given that Indian bands (who have special fishing rights) are, obviously, going to be composed of people of a particular ethnic group.

The issues around fishing are big time in recent treaty negotiations. The traditional land ended up with 110 percent of the land mass of BC. That issue was left to the assorted bands to figure out. It's becoming a bit heated. The Nisga ended up with a percentage of the fish subject to conservation condition. BC's present Premier fought that treaty with great vigour even after he formed government, with a referendum, which insulted a lot of people. He was not assuring the honour of the Crown for sure. Somewhere along the line Gordo had a big change of position. But I digress. The 14 Douglas Treaties have a line about "fish as formally" which should keep the Supreme Court of Canada busy for years as they decide what that means.

In the mean time The Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have stated there are two ways to resolve the issue of title. Negotiate or prove it in court , with the preference of negotiate. Road blocks and illegal fishing isn't the way to go, nor should food and ceremonial fish be sold out of the back of a truck .

I and a associate were fortunate to be at over 70 treaty main table negotiations as a third party interest person. And on a Regional Advisory Committe person.( gordo shut down the regional advisory groups as well) What an eye opener. Things a lot of us consider as pretty normal actions for all, are seen as others quite differently.
Treaties can solve the issues so lets get a few finished to show others the way. The Nisga'a are moving ahead.

One form of discrimination does not balance another. It is hard to see how giving First Nations commercial fishermen preferential treatment over the fish will improve relationships between the groups concerned.

All the rhetoric is so much wind. This ruling is a reaction to the recent settlements in the residential school issue. It is being done to prove that white society can be fair to natives. The people making these stratospheric decisions have never had to fish for a living, not will they ever. They are sacrificing the white fishermen as disposable pawns.

Canadian society is so engrained with elitism and snobbery that the judges who make these decisions genuinely think they are doing good. In fact they are sowing the seeds of discontent that will grow and fester for as long as these laws are in place.

I am involved in the fishery, but as a restoration biologist. It is sickening to see the annual gathering of eagles who want to slaughter the salmon, without having put one ounce of effort into conserving the stocks. The stocks are in decline in many parts of the province, yet the pressure for maintaining the fishing pressure never eases off.

Everyone has bills to pay. I believe in equality where everyone is equal and should have equal opportunity, today. Period.

This issue is remeniscent of the Air India Flight 182 bombing, which was given to a professional judge to rule on. The issue was too simple for such highly trained legal mind to fully understand. The judges MUST come up with a controversial decision, to prove how clever they are. As a result two men walk the streets of Vancouver who are "probably guilty" of mass murder, and the fishing community is divided as never before. It is called "orchestrated outrage" and it is a very old and a very cynical game.

Discrimination is discrimination. Calling it anything else is to lie. Those who think otherwise have forgotten that the purpose of language is to communicate with purpose, not to purposefully miscommunicate. They should be excommunicated from dialogue with honest men.

Realist2 said
Even if land claims are settled and monies paid what will become of this money? What exactly will it accomplish? Will it give the First Nations people back their culture?

How can you even ask that? Do not First Nations People have their own culture alive and thriving today? Of course no one is running around like an Indian from an old west movie (I seem to recall that no one actually did, but that’s another rant) Cultures grow and change, kind of like technology its pretty handy having that computer now isn’t it? If a culture was to remain locked in time, it would die, and despite the Canadian government's best attempts this has not happened to the Aboriginal people of this country yet.
The Supreme Court was correct in its ruling, it was not a race based fisher, but rather, letting the original inhabitants have a crack at the fish they have been fishing for centuries. Does it really piss you guys off so much to see those Indians actually make use of their "fish" in an acceptable white way? Or just that the poor white fisherman couldn't have their first crack at the fish?
Aboriginal people make up less than 6 percent of the Canadian population, if they wish to exercise their right to do the things they did before Canada was settled, then they have the right too.
As Jack's comment about the use of all the new fancy boats, nets and guns for hunting- I highly doubt that you as an average Canadian are still using the horse and buggy that your ancestors used when they got here, why should Aboriginals be locked in the past?
Also, (DPL) why should fish not be sold out of the back of pickup trucks? Salmon from the Fraser River was traded inland as far as the Shuswap (and probably further- its late and I can't remember) but the only thing is, back then it was traded for goods, today that system has been replaced with "money"- so why shouldn't Aboriginal people sell their fish? There are countless historical records to prove this fact. For starters, the Hudson Bay Forts used to purchase/trade for salmon- the Kamloops Fort would trade 25 dried salmon for one horse. Even the guy selling the fish out his pick-up couldn't get those kind of prices today-talk about inflation.
I am not sure if it is a collective guilt that makes everyone scream unfair- those Indians are getting something for nothing, but when one looks at the whole picture, Canada got a whole lot of land for free, only problem was that they forgot to kill all the people they took it from. Aboriginal people constitute so little of the Canadian population, that if we paid up now, and made them partners, instead of beggars, it would cost less than if we wait even longer to settle.

Neets please.
"Paying Up to make them partners, instead of beggars", shows where you are at. Each individual on this planet has choices to make. Canada has not made them beggars anymore than we have made immigrants or any other group, beggars. Handouts have made some of the First Nations relient on handouts. Again the fish of which you speak are not theirs as they like to claim. They are all of ours and to claim ownership of fish or animals is ridiculous.

FANSHAW: Yes both the First Nations and the disabled are mentioned in the Charter, but this is apples and oranges. The disabled have physical limitations towards participating in our current society. The first nations may face racist views but do they have physical or mental limitations to actively joining current society? I think not unless you consider what frequency of light rays the First Nations people's skin reflect a disability.

Realist2- the point of settling treaties is to make all Canadians equal. The harsh conditions still felt by many First Nations people today, can not be understood by many non-Aboriginal people. The past injustices are alive and well today. Racism- raises its ugly head every single moment for Aboriginal people- whether it’s all the extra attention they receive from sales people in stores, to the racist attitudes of the police. (To serve and protect my ass- only if you're not Aboriginal!) And if we settled the treaties, it would make the First Nations people partners, not the pushed off to the side beggars that they have been for the last 300 years. It is shameful that we treat the people we stole the land from worse than foreigners, like they have no right to do what they have been doing for years. (For more information- our lovely government gave Japanese Canadians citizen status before it gave Aboriginal people citizenship! Gawd, can’t win for losing- original inhabitant or not- until 1960- you weren’t a full citizen of Canada). Canada has too created the "beggars" for lack of a better term, attempting to wipe out entire races, is genocide. Canada is responsible for these actions, for not only do they still affect Aboriginal people today, but non-Aboriginal people. We do not live in a vacuum, where the past has no bearing; the past indicates how we will act in the present and future. Everyone is the sum of their experiences, and to forget the past is a dangerous thing, especially when the past is alive and well in the present. The choices that individuals make are based on the experiences of the past- not the future, and are limited to ones social standing in time and place.

Comparing disabled people and Aboriginal people is out of place. Being that I live constantly with labels (Whether it’s a mental illness of my adult sister or a physical disability) the choices I make are based on what is available to me at that point in time. I am limited on what I can do by not only my family responsibilities, but the physical disabilities I am faced with. Is that fair? No, but then I did not ask for the physical disabilities, and my sister did not ask for the mental illness. We all make the best we can, the same can be said for other (full-blooded) Aboriginal people. Canada has to recognize the fact that it has at best ignored Aboriginal people (preferable to being acknowledged by the government- that led to residential schools and tainted blankets) and has created these discrepancies. Reserves, Indian Status, tax-exempt status, where all created by the government. The negative attitudes do not help Aboriginal people make individual choices that would give them equal standing in Canadian society.
Even when a native person has a job, nice house, 2.1 kids- the racism is still there. The stereotypical attitude of lazy Indians is alive and well, and unless the courts then governments settle land treaties soon, it will continue. My uncles are some of the hardest working individuals I know, but their still Indians. The countless acts of racism, police brutality against them simply for the colour of their skin, can not be justified, just because they may or may not have made bad choices. One makes the best decisions of the options available to them. And it is sad to say that the options available to first nation’s people are limited, even today.
continued...

continued from above...

As for people getting mad at Aboriginal people using their tax exempt status to purchases things for others, get over it. My mother has this tax exempt status on reserve and she is more than willing to buy things for this household, and since I am the one paying the bills, the least she can do is use her tax exempt status, to help make my limited funds go a bit further. The tax exempt status is a pitiful payment from the federal government on the land they took from the original inhabitants. The land that the people of Canada continue to enjoy- I might add. It is a right- not a privilege of Aboriginal people to use their tax exempt status. Its not like it’s a huge problem, Aboriginal people constitute less than 6 percent of the entire nation, six percent of tax paying citizens does not add up to much, let alone make up for the value of the land was taken. Unless of course, you feel that Canada is a worthless country, and we shouldn’t have to pay a thing for it. By all means then, continue as you were.

Well put Neets.