Yep, but then Winston Churchill has been accused of that too, along with thousands of other productive people.
Attawapiskat chief goes on hunger strike
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Yep, but then Winston Churchill has been accused of that too, along with thousands of other productive people.
What exactly does the idle no more stand for? I don't even think THEY know. They want the govenment to repeal Bills C 30 something and C45 but they don't even know what's in them. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Libs and NDP's "visiting" Spence and appearing to support her when in fact they know damn well she's a fraud. Makes me sick!!
JMHO
JMHO
I think Spence has the good of her people at heart but I don't think she's mentally up to the position she holds. I would even hazard a guess that a month ago she may not have pulled the B.S. she's pulling now. To try to save face she won't back off. As far as Libs and N.D.P. goes it's all politicking...............oppose Harper at all costs no matter how stupid you look. -
I think the media has seriously and intentionally confused the issues here. Spence's hunger strike and Idle no More are two separate things. Spence has her crosses to bare and the Idle movement is a call to action. There may be no central issue with so many bands having their own issues with government. What started out as a Stop Bill C-45 has mushroomed into a much broader movement with many regional fronts. Unfortunately, the media has an agenda that is diametrically opposed to that of the aboriginals and their reporting is designed to confuse the general population to discredit the movement.
The chiefs are again, a separate issue, not tied to the Idle no More movement. And, of course, SUN has confused the issues and slanted their reporting to reflect their particular bias. This just proves what I said above even more.
That doesn't mean they get screwed.
In our case Kooter and I have been offered full scholarships for schooling. In Kooter's case, he's only 16 and not really interested in doing social work, which is what they've offered the funding for. My case is similar in that they are guiding me to social work, and I don't have the faculties to cope within that over politicized system.
As it is I simply volunteer my time now, and teach bushcraft. The hoops and hurdles I face now are more than enough for me to deal with thanks.
Wow!
For you to believe anything Robson says you would have to ignore key fundamental human rights, and ignore the exact wording of several treaties.
Only if you ride rough shod over the contracts.
Contracts generally involve 2 (or multiple) parties wherein expectations are spelled-out.
A breech by one of the parties can nullify/defer/delay, etc the stipulations within, but the effect is essentially the same in that all parties lose in the end.
Last edited:
You accidentally quoted Petros, but I heard ya, lol.
I disagree. As we've seen in recent years, the SCC has found in favour of FN lawsuits against the Crown for breach of the contracts.
We win, Crown loses, although sometimes we lose.
Where we really lose is, when you get uppity militants that claim to speak for all FN's, who block major thoroughfares and rail lines.
As far as I'm concerned and from what I can see and hear, it's completely counterproductive.
Contract law is a weird area.... I recently got to wondering about the 'perpetuity' of the agreements that were/are in place... From what I have come to recently understand, perpetuity is an element that is not considered legally binding - something to do with laws passed in the 1500's and King Charles(?).
Regardless, the SCC ruled and that stands until challenged I suppose.
Caveat: The SCC has recently disappointed me in their findings on the ability to wear a burka in court - but that's another story.
This is more the area to which I was referring to, particularly in response to Petros' post... A vengeful prick would declare that the fiscal damages suffered as a result from a blockade would be recouped from the IA National budget... The people that would really suffer are the average FNs folk and not the leadership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question for you: What are your thoughts on altering the law to allow individual ownership of rez lands to individual FN peoples?.. I'm not suggesting allowing people to sell them off per se (initially at least - I'll tell you why I say this {opinion that is} if you like), but at least allow ownership and possible revenue opportunities or leasing - things like that.
In the treaties, perpetuity was spelled out in clear wording.
Although the treaties were designed and written by international standards, they are still treated like a contract in many ways, but not subject to the same principles of laws as a formal civil contract.
I think it was a fair compromise.
I would support arrest and seeking damages from the parties involved.
I really don't have one.
As it stands you own the home on the land and both stay in your family perpetually until you either sell the home (Privately) to another Band member (At which point the Band transfers possession of the land to the other party) or move the home.
Leasing/renting income properties (To non natives) already exists.
The local convenience store in Rama is leased to a Korean family.
My point; perpetuity in a legal agreement was declared non-binding
Understood. As per the above, the treaty isn't a contract in the sense that I was to understand
I don't think that the SCC made any real ruling... It's OK sometimes and not other times
Here's the rub... IF the AFN or recognized FN communities call for this kind of action and also do so in a manner that invokes a nation to nation relationship; how does one hold an individual(s) responsible as opposed to the 'nation'?
Thanks for the schooling
Only in domestic/civil contractual law.
But it's still a contract, and subject to the same considerations under contractual law.
Sometimes a compromise looks wishy washy.
I don't think you'll find that these protests have the support of a unified Nation.
Anytime dude, it's my agenda.
at what point does a township get zero funding, and the people are told to go find another place to live and work. when do we say that this is a ghost town so get the eff out.
do any of the same principles get applied to a reservation that is not economically viable?
do any of the same principles get applied to a reservation that is not economically viable?
If I lose my job, I get less than a year of EI benefits, then I can make a claim for social assistance. Social assistance is not much. I would stay alive, probably with the help of charities and food banks, but everything that I have would slowly deteriorate around me until eventually I would have nothing.
But if my goal is to preserve my lifestyle, then I have a choice to find another job, or move to another part of Canada to find another job.
Do any of these same principles apply to someone on a reservation?
But if my goal is to preserve my lifestyle, then I have a choice to find another job, or move to another part of Canada to find another job.
Do any of these same principles apply to someone on a reservation?