Canada has been going round and round with this "treaty" bullsh*t for over 300 years and it never seems to end.
Is it time to say enough is enough?
Scrap the whole "treaty" crap, close the "reservations", make those with status cards a monatary offer (10 or 20 grand each) and they can either sink or swim like the ROC.
Is that even a legally viable (if not morally ethical) option?
Is that even a legally viable (if not morally ethical) option?
You should see it from this side dude!
Perhaps you could just throw a couple life preservers, then we could at least tread water while you swim.
Is it "morally ethical" to continue to "baby" First Nations people?
Insulate them on reserves from the ROC?
I have, through my Mother, Grandmother, and Great Grandmothers eyes.
The ROC have thrown enough life preservers over the last 300 years.
There's a monumental difference between ethically upholding contractual obligations and the social engineering that has also taken place in the last 30 years. The two should not confused or lumped together.
Don't you mean segregate? I mean this whole idea was great when you guys were raping our land for resources and all.
And yer still bitchin'?
No, most of those were big round rocks, just painted to look like life preservers.
Try again. You're confusing social agendas from the last 30 years, with actual contracts.
We have paid enough for these "contractual" obligations. The only ones that are making money on any of this at this point in time are the Lawyers from both sides and the "chiefs" and their "yes men".
Enough is enough, we have more than paid our "obligation" for the land.
As for "raping your land"..... the indians have been more than lucky that the English and French that first came to this continent didn't just wipe out the few savages that were here and take what they wanted. They were more than generous in what was offered and what has been paid.
The 3 of them had nothing good to say about indians.
...
No, just because your people called them rocks doesn't mean they were.
I'm not confusing anything, I'm looking at this bottomless pit and saying we need to stop throwing money into it.
Teaties, wheaties; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?
Sure, they're making more then their fair share, but the rest are just scraping by.
Do you actually know what the average 'Injun' actually gets in the way of subsidies from the MIA?
$4500/year.
Not by the wording in the contracts...
You do realise that the treaties were written because you couldn't defeat us right?
You do realise that the treaties were written because you couldn't defeat us right?
and free housing( which they turn into dumps within a few years of them being built).... and no taxes ( and how much that amounts to is VERY evident by how cheap cigs can be purchased from status indians).... and and and...........
...need any hand guns? Alcohol? I got about a dozen 60 pounders of Vodka and Rum, brand names to boot...Should we look at the wordng of the "contracts"? and I don't mean the updated, "let's make it pertinant to today" wording. The wording that says treaty 7 natives will get a few bags of seed a year, shovels, hoes............
Yup...... those bows, spears, and clubs were a real problem.
I think that The Crown of Canada absolutely must honour its contractual obligations to our Aboriginal peoples. Whether or not it was Her Majesty’s Government for Canada that signed on to these agreements, or some previous manifestation of the Canadian Crown, we as a nation (as a sovereign institution and as a people) are responsible for ensuring that we honour and uphold those treaties unless, and until, we are able to change them pursuant to the rule of law.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
However, that is not to say that those contractual obligations cannot be changed—with the consent of both parties, of course. Given that modern Canada has the resources to support both our Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, it seems to make sense to me that we should create an instrument whereby Aboriginal citizens can volunteer to revoke any special status that they hold (perhaps, as suggested above, for one-time monetary compensation).
We could also lobby The Honourable Chuck Strahl P.C., M.P. (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the
And you didn't get the best land? Has it ever occurred to you defeat wasn't the intent?
Compromise never has worked well for GWM, eh?
I think that The Crown of Canada absolutely must honour its contractual obligations to our Aboriginal peoples. Whether or not it was Her Majesty’s Government for Canada that signed on to these agreements, or some previous manifestation of the Canadian Crown, we as a nation (as a sovereign institution and as a people) are responsible for ensuring that we honour and uphold those treaties unless, and until, we are able to change them pursuant to the rule of law.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
However, that is not to say that those contractual obligations cannot be changed—with the consent of both parties, of course. Given that modern Canada has the resources to support both our Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, it seems to make sense to me that we should create an instrument whereby Aboriginal citizens can volunteer to revoke any special status that they hold (perhaps, as suggested above, for one-time monetary compensation).
We could also lobby The Honourable Chuck Strahl P.C., M.P. (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the
I agree with you...to a point..... the "decades" thing I say BS to. It's been centuries already. We make the offer, if they can't agree, then we impose the offer. If our exising laws won't support it, then we change the laws to allow it and use the "not withstanding clause" to push it through.
I agree with you...to a point..... the "decades" thing I say BS to. It's been centuries already. We make the offer, if they can't agree, then we impose the offer. If our exising laws won't support it, then we change the laws to allow it and use the "not withstanding clause" to push it through.
But I'm not sure how it affected gay white males?
I wonder how many Treaties have actually run their courses as generations passed or waters that run free were dammed?
Don't ya love it. If you dont' like a contract, let the demagoguic will of the majority prevail.
...and that has what to do with the topic?
And your point?
A deal is a deal. Deal with it.
BTW: How you set for smokes, I have a box of Podium Blue King size left...
Ya, but then there's the fact that health, welbeing and care, were worded in. That puts modernization in the mix, hence the redressing of the contracts.
You forgot death mauls. And numbers, then you have ferocity too.
Seamen were pressed into service. Warrior look forward to dying in battle. Guaranteed spot at the Council Fire in the hereafter...
Tried and failed. Even though some treaties have the phrases...
"So long as the sun shines"
"So long as the rivers flow"
It is in the premise that the bond is made, not the literal translation.