A small step toward First Nations accountability

[CDNBear]

It's time Harper tells the First Nations the bank is closed and they'll have no more special privileges based on so called native status such as fishing rights or not paying taxes because it's the 21st Century which means they will have the same rights and obligations as any other Canadian citizen..

Johnny, you may want to brush up on the actual reality of Native status, before you make huge assumptions, as you just have.

I have status, I can no more legally fish Lake Simcoe without a valid Ontario Fishing License, then you can.

I can however hunt and fish in Wahta, without a license. As I can in most Haudenosaunee territory, if invited.

But the minute I leave the territorial area, I must have a valid license and tags, to poses any game or fish.

Same for taxation. I do not live on or work on or in a territorial area. I pay income tax, HST and property tax.

 

[Cannuck]

I'm not looking for a victory, I'm looking for a challenging debate

Perhaps that's the problem. I'm here for entertainment. If I wanted challenging debate, I wouldn't be looking for it on web forums (no insult intended to the folks here). As for this particular thread, I'm really only interested in pointing out logical inconsistencies as those are my pet peeves. Perhaps if there was some standard as to what constitutes a nation. That way, the same standards can be used whether we are talking about Kweebeck, Chechnya, Kosovo, Taiwan or CB and his buddies.

The obvious difference between me and CB is that I don't hold THE LAW up as some infallible system. I really care little if THE LAW considers his group a nation. THE LAW also used to consider women as unequal so obviously, citing THE LAW does nothing to prove his argument or disprove mine.

I just want logical consistency. I guess if one was to use that standard, I'm winning this discussion but that and a twoonie might get me a cup of coffee.

 

[karrie]

Perhaps that's the problem. I'm here for entertainment. If I wanted challenging debate, I wouldn't be looking for it on web forums (no insult intended to the folks here). As for this particular thread, I'm really only interested in pointing out logical inconsistencies as those are my pet peeves. Perhaps if there was some standard as to what constitutes a nation. That way, the same standards can be used whether we are talking about Kweebeck, Chechnya, Kosovo, Taiwan or CB and his buddies.

The obvious difference between me and CB is that I don't hold THE LAW up as some infallible system. I really care little if THE LAW considers his group a nation. THE LAW also used to consider women as unequal so obviously, citing THE LAW does nothing to prove his argument or disprove mine.

I just want logical consistency. I guess if one was to use that standard, I'm winning this discussion but that and a twoonie might get me a cup of coffee.

Logical consistency says to me that the people who occupy a country constitute a nation. The First Nations were here long before we were, and the governments chose to write treaties with them for the co-occupation of this nation, rather than attempt to continue fighting them. It seems pretty straight forward, and not illogical in the least. Frankly, what you are countering comes off as wishing rather than logic.

 

[Cannuck]

Logical consistency says to me that the people who occupy a country constitute a nation. The First Nations were here long before we were, and the governments chose to write treaties with them for the co-occupation of this nation, rather than attempt to continue fighting them. It seems pretty straight forward, and not illogical in the least. ...

I haven't disagreed with that. My point is that whatever these "nations" were at one time, they aren't now. We may have had treaties with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Libya. Things change. If these groups want to be treated as nations, we need to define what a nation is (obviously most people no not consider Kweebeck as a nation in the truest sense of the word just because the PM calls them a nation) and when and only when these groups meet these standards, we begin negotiating new treaties or honoring old ones.

 

[CDNBear]

I just want logical consistency.

Then prove where my position is not logically consistent.

With facts and some form of evidence.

 

[Cannuck]

Then prove where my position is not logically consistent.

I have

 

[CDNBear]

I haven't disagreed with that. My point is that whatever these "nations" were at one time, they aren't now. We may have had treaties with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Libya. Things change. If these groups want to be treated as nations, we need to define what a nation is (obviously most people no not consider Kweebeck as a nation in the truest sense of the word just because the PM calls them a nation) and when and only when these groups meet these standards, we begin negotiating new treaties or honoring old ones.

Show me how the Haudenosaunee do not meet this standard?

definition of nation - Google Search

I have

Where?

 

[Cannuck]

Show me how the Haudenosaunee do not meet this standard?

There is no standard...that's the point. Sorry you've been missing it.

 

[CDNBear]

There is no standard...that's the point. Sorry you've been missing it.

So we're back to "Cuz I say so" are we. I never missed that.

But fair enough Joey, I see you've missed the links to the internationally accepted definition thereof.

So we aren't a Nation according to Joey. The rest of the world on the other hand, lives in reality.

 

[Cannuck]

But fair enough Joey, I see you've missed the links to the internationally accepted definition thereof

Of course I haven't. Some of the stuff in your links back me up.

"Nations that are a community of people sharing a common territory and government but are not sovereign states can be controversial subjects due, in no small part, to national security concerns of neighboring countries. A notable example of a people who consider themselves to be a nation are those of the State of Palestine, which has territories generally delineated. Palestinian nationalism in modern times arose between 1948 and 1950. The leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 spoke of "the Palestinian nation" in the context of Jerusalem and Palestine.[3] The State of Palestine is today widely recognized by sovereign states, although often in equivocal terms.[4] Still, op‑ed pieces in Israeli media question the existence of a Palestinian nation.[5] "

 

[CDNBear]

Of course I haven't. Some of the stuff in your links back me up.

One blurb on Palestine?

Well at least you're starting to get the gist of supporting evidence, as flimsy as it may be.

Lets look at the facts that make your argument fall apart...

1, Palestine as it is being used in the context of your assertion, did not exist at the creation of Israel.
-The Haudenosaunee did exist as a sovereign people when the Europeans landed, they had a constitution, gov't, currency, trade, and borders.
2, At that time, the people that would become "Palestinians" made no treaties with any Nation to solidify a border. They turned down the invitation to do so.
-The Haudenosaunee made treaties with the Crown, one guaranteeing the two peoples would be equal and walk the same path together as such. The other, guaranteeing that the Crown would not interfere with the sovereignty of the Six Nations.

Which I might add, the Crown has been in breach of, since almost there inception.

Good try, but keep trying though. You may want to use some of that logical consistency you keep blathering about.

 

[Cannuck]

Palestine as it is being used in the context of your assertion, did not exist at the creation of Israel.

LOL, thanks for that. You supported my argument quite nicely. Palestine was a nation, ceased to be a nation (according to you) and now is considered a nation (by some). Pretty much sums up my arguments concerning you and the boys. So do tell, why was Palestine "not a nation" in your eyes?

 

[CDNBear]

LOL, thanks for that.

Quite. Any other words like "context" you'd like to ignore?

eta; Way to ignore the rest of my post, that again takes the wind out of your sales.

 

[Cannuck]

I thought you were here for debate. That requires answering questions posed to you. I guess you weren't entirely truthful on that one either.

 

[CDNBear]

I thought you were here for debate. That requires answering questions posed to you. I guess you weren't entirely truthful on that one either.

You need two competent parties to have a debate.

Alas, I find myself alone in this debate.

You see, I too can ignore parts of posts.

I could waste my time answering that question, but it isn't germane to the conversation and simply another attempt by yourself at diverting the topic, because you can't refute my post, in which I prove the claim you made to be in error.

You see, only one of us is actually using logical consistency Joey.

I bet you think it's you. ;-)

 

[Ron in Regina]

Guys, please stick to arguing/debating the topic and let the personal sleights go
by the wayside.

Enjoying an afternoon at home doing laundry, making Chili, & catching up on things
here on the Forum. Please steer back to debating the topic and drop the pissing
match before the Thread becomes much shorter.

Going once....going twice....

 

[karrie]

I haven't disagreed with that. My point is that whatever these "nations" were at one time, they aren't now. We may have had treaties with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Libya. Things change. If these groups want to be treated as nations, we need to define what a nation is (obviously most people no not consider Kweebeck as a nation in the truest sense of the word just because the PM calls them a nation) and when and only when these groups meet these standards, we begin negotiating new treaties or honoring old ones.

They are now what the treaties dictated they be. You can't revoke their status because they are honouring the treaty. That's underhanded.

 

[DaSleeper]

I have status, I can no more legally fish Lake Simcoe without a valid Ontario Fishing License, then you can.I can however hunt and fish in Wahta, without a license. As I can in most Haudenosaunee territory, if invited.

But the minute I leave the territorial area, I must have a valid license and tags, to poses any game or fish.

Same for taxation. I do not live on or work on or in a territorial area. I pay income tax, HST and property tax.

And I can fish anywhere in Ontario without a license....I just have to show my card;-)

 

[Cannuck]

...I could waste my time answering that question, but it isn't germane to the conversation...

Oh, but it is. It strikes at the very core of my position.

They are now what the treaties dictated they be.

I disagree and that is the crux of the argument.

 

[CDNBear]

Oh, but it is. It strikes at the very core of my position.

Really? How so?

I disagree and that is the crux of the argument.

And you still haven't produced anything to support it, other then "I says so".