Attawapiskat chief goes on hunger strike

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
An excerpt of a letter............





I say “Anishinaabe” and not “aboriginal” intentionally, for this is who I am and how you should understand me. Regarding our relationship, I’m from Treaty #3 Territory. I’m a lawyer. I have a graduate degree from Yale Law School where last year I was a Fulbright scholar.

I am writing to you, all my relations Indigenous and other, because in all I have seen and felt in 31 years, now is the most afraid I have been for you and for myself, the most ashamed I have been of my Prime Minister and of my Governor General, and the most proud I have been of my Indigenous relations and so importantly, our settler allies who have surprised and amazed me. I am humbled by their good words and actions.

I want to explain these statements and to share my feelings with you about the historical moment we are witnessing. In so doing, I speak only for myself. Although I support many of the actions organized as part of the Idle No More movement, I don’t represent it. I’ve been as surprised and overwhelmed by it as have many of you.

I can think of many things of which Canadians might be fearful today: the impacts of global warming and climate change; loss of jobs, pensions or benefits; war; an ailing and inadequate health care system; increasingly authoritarian and antidemocratic domestic governance; federal indifference to the murder of Indigenous women. These are just a few of many serious issues we face together and I am gravely concerned about each. I am terrified, however, of what may happen if Chief Spence dies of hunger.

I do not want you to “go home”; this is your home and I will defend your right to be here. As partners in Treaty with Indigenous peoples, you have a treaty right to be here and I honour that. Feel no guilt about it. I have learned much from you and your ancestors and I am grateful. More practically, through my mother, who is not of Indigenous ancestry, I am you and there are many like me. I honour your presence here.

You, too, must honour mine. That means that you do not get to tell me to live like you, if this is not how I choose to live. Indigenous peoples are not minorities who moved here on your terms. We are not stakeholders. We are not an interest group. We are treaty partners and but for our partnership there would be no Canada today. My relations are buried throughout this land you rightly call home. They lived and died here long before you knew your present home existed. It is not for you or your leaders to decide how a life should be lived for both of us. This is what we agreed to. When your leaders presume to decide how my life should be lived or what values I should have, they have given up representing my interests and they are no longer my leaders too. This is my belief and I will defend it. To the best of my understanding, this is what Idle No More is about. Indigenous Canada wants a just and respectful relationship with the state and with non-Indigenous Canadians, not one premised on unacknowledged and tacitly accepted continuing colonial violence. All my non-Indigenous relations, if you accept less than an end to colonial violence, have you not quietly accepted that Indigenous Canadians are worth less than you?

all of it

An open letter to all my relations: On Idle No More, Chief Spence and non-violence | rabble.ca
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
A sovereign nation??? A little village with less than 2000 people is a sovereign nation??? I have no problem with the federal government
supporting these people but I think they have an extremely overblown sense of entightlement. Spouting about their sovereign nation on
one hand while clawing for handouts with the other.
This dispute isn't just about First Nation legitimacy and entitlements, its also about Canada's legitimacy and entitlements.

Since the First Nation people were here first, they are entitlement to all the land where they live and a right to the resources on the land where they hunted and trapped.

Its Canada that has an overblown sense of entitlement. Until all disputed land is settled by treaty, the Canadian government is not entitled to develop, sell or lease that land, yet it does anyway. Canada's development of disputed land is a form of property theft, which is why the Idle No More movement can justify blocking access to/through their disputed lands.

1) All existing treaties must be respected, until they are renegotiated. If the Canadian government has violated the treaty, then the First Nation is entitled to compensation.
2) Any First Nation which lacks a treaty must be able to halt development of disputed land (otherwise they'll be ignored and never get a treaty)
3) Canada's legitimacy is based on European claims to undisputed land and negotiated treaties on disputed land.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Well, I use "we" talking about a majority of Canadians who are sick to death of dimwits like Spense wanting to talk "nation to nation"
with our government when she can't seem to do anything about a lot of her people living in anything better than cardboard boxes. The money she is spending in Ottawa could better help her people than her moronic hunger strike.

But if she did what needed to be done instead of making a spectacle of herself she would never make the news.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,205
14,854
113
Low Earth Orbit
This dispute isn't just about First Nation legitimacy and entitlements, its also about Canada's legitimacy and entitlements.

Since the First Nation people were here first, they are entitlement to all the land where they live and a right to the resources on the land where they hunted and trapped.

Its Canada that has an overblown sense of entitlement. Until all disputed land is settled by treaty, the Canadian government is not entitled to develop, sell or lease that land, yet it does anyway. Canada's development of disputed land is a form of property theft, which is why the Idle No More movement can justify blocking access to/through their disputed lands.

1) All existing treaties must be respected, until they are renegotiated. If the Canadian government has violated the treaty, then the First Nation is entitled to compensation.
2) Any First Nation which lacks a treaty must be able to halt development of disputed land (otherwise they'll be ignored and never get a treaty)
3) Canada's legitimacy is based on European claims to undisputed land and negotiated treaties on disputed land.
Have you ever considered that many Natives wanted treaties?
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Stories about poor or dilapidated housing conditions on First Nations reserves are a recurring news feature. First Nations leaders argue for more funds to build more houses, and blame the federal government for the poor condition of existing homes. But who really is responsible for the construction of homes in these communities?


The short answer is that the Chief in Council is responsible. In 1983, as part of devolution of responsibility to First Nations, Chief in Councils became the authority with respect to homes built in their jurisdiction.


It also became the responsibility of Chief in Councils to pass by-laws to control building activities. The responsibility included introducing building permits, and ensuring that building activities such as electrical work were performed by licensed electricians.


However, only some 12 of 650 First Nations communities have passed by-laws stating that residential homes must be built to either the national or provincial building code. For the majority of communities, there are no by-laws or processes to approve building plans or the site where the home is to be built.


In many cases, electrical work is done by unqualified workers. New construction is generally not inspected, and if it is, the approval is based on a band housing policy and not on whether the construction complies with actual building codes.

More at:

First Nations’ housing is not up to code | Full Comment | National Post

 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Stories about poor or dilapidated housing conditions on First Nations reserves are a recurring news feature. First Nations leaders argue for more funds to build more houses, and blame the federal government for the poor condition of existing homes. But who really is responsible for the construction of homes in these communities?


The short answer is that the Chief in Council is responsible. In 1983, as part of devolution of responsibility to First Nations, Chief in Councils became the authority with respect to homes built in their jurisdiction.


It also became the responsibility of Chief in Councils to pass by-laws to control building activities. The responsibility included introducing building permits, and ensuring that building activities such as electrical work were performed by licensed electricians.


However, only some 12 of 650 First Nations communities have passed by-laws stating that residential homes must be built to either the national or provincial building code. For the majority of communities, there are no by-laws or processes to approve building plans or the site where the home is to be built.


In many cases, electrical work is done by unqualified workers. New construction is generally not inspected, and if it is, the approval is based on a band housing policy and not on whether the construction complies with actual building codes.

More at:

First Nations’ housing is not up to code | Full Comment | National Post

I think the most pressing need before this dilemma can move forward is accountability for the missing $100 million or at least identification of those responsible. It's a sad state of affairs when thousands of innocents continue to suffer but it's also a sad state of affairs that taxpayers have to replace money with money we don't have. This is no longer an ethnic issue but a monetary one!
 

hadanuff

New Member
Jan 12, 2013
6
0
1
I suggest you read Canadian History and the treaties signed. Also the SCoC rulings. And when that is completed come back as I will have more for you.
See you in a few years. Say bye now.
Well ok ill keep giving then your right I guess we shouldn't have funded the war and let Hitler take over...
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Stories about poor or dilapidated housing conditions on First Nations reserves are a recurring news feature. First Nations leaders argue for more funds to build more houses, and blame the federal government for the poor condition of existing homes. But who really is responsible for the construction of homes in these communities?


The short answer is that the Chief in Council is responsible. In 1983, as part of devolution of responsibility to First Nations, Chief in Councils became the authority with respect to homes built in their jurisdiction.


It also became the responsibility of Chief in Councils to pass by-laws to control building activities. The responsibility included introducing building permits, and ensuring that building activities such as electrical work were performed by licensed electricians.


However, only some 12 of 650 First Nations communities have passed by-laws stating that residential homes must be built to either the national or provincial building code. For the majority of communities, there are no by-laws or processes to approve building plans or the site where the home is to be built.


In many cases, electrical work is done by unqualified workers. New construction is generally not inspected, and if it is, the approval is based on a band housing policy and not on whether the construction complies with actual building codes.

More at:

First Nations’ housing is not up to code | Full Comment | National Post



I will be honest with you, I read the article and it all makes sense but I keep coming back to one nagging question.

If this is the short answer
The short answer is that the Chief in Council is responsible.
What's the long answer and does it impact on the information presented? Perhaps it doesn't but if there is only one thing I've learned in my life, things are rarely as they appear on the surface.

Well ok ill keep giving then your right I guess we shouldn't have funded the war and let Hitler take over...

So who are being compared to the Nazi's in your little scenario? First Nations? The government? And further, what the heck does a suggestion to bone up on Canadian history with regards to treaties and Supreme Court rulings have to do with World War Two?
 

hadanuff

New Member
Jan 12, 2013
6
0
1
welfare? and where do you suppose the land came from that those roads are built on, and the hospitals?

I agree though, if people aren't willing to pay, then they shouldn't be allowed to use. So, with that in mind, where are you planning on moving to since you don't seem willing to "pay" for the legal treaty obligations.
As far as I'm concerned its been paid,over and over again! this is creating a divided in our great country!!
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Yes this keeps coming back to accountability. Who got the money and how did they spend it. When the Band Chief screws up or nepotism and corruption becomes a problem, the federal government is supposed to intervene. I think the AFN should also get involved. The government should work with the AFN to fix fiscal responsibility problems on individual reserves.

IMO, the AFN should have the same powers as a Province. How those powers are subdivided down to the reserve level is the business of the first nations, but I would expect each reserve to have about the same powers as a municipality. Ideally the money going to reserves would be along the lines of transfer payments to provinces. The AFN should dole the money out to the reserves and take responsibilty for ensuring the money is well spent and intervene if problems arise. the government should only play a supervisory role and only intervene in exceptional circumstances. The Chief of the AFN should attend all First Ministers conferences as an equal and sign off on any changes to our constitution. Anything less than that level of power sharing with the AFN would have a stench of colonialism.
 
Last edited:

hadanuff

New Member
Jan 12, 2013
6
0
1


I will be honest with you, I read the article and it all makes sense but I keep coming back to one nagging question.

If this is the short answer What's the long answer and does it impact on the information presented? Perhaps it doesn't but if there is only one thing I've learned in my life, things are rarely as they appear on the surface.



So who are being compared to the Nazi's in your little scenario? First Nations? The government? And further, what the heck does a suggestion to bone up on Canadian history with regards to treaties and Supreme Court rulings have to do with World War Two?
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
If we didn't get together and fight for our country called CANADA as one unit.. Were would we be now? I think it's time we are treated all the same,its been long enough!!!!
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
If we didn't get together and fight for our country called CANADA as one unit.. Were would we be now? I think it's time we are treated all the same,its been long enough!!!!

I completely agree. I think it's high time the Crown lived up to it's end of the bargain with First Nations people like it does in it's dealings with everyone else. Good thinking.

I'm loathe to ask what your opinion on immigrants is.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
As far as I'm concerned its been paid,over and over again! this is creating a divided in our great country!!


it's creating a divided in our Country is it............. Ya....ok.... I'd suggest you read a few of the treaties, but I doubt you are able to.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
As far as I'm concerned its been paid,over and over again! this is creating a divided in our great country!!
The great corporation of Canada is grateful for your economic and moral support. So please, give until it hurts.

As always, your CEO and leader Harpo.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Define Long please. Then define enough.
Geezuz! You would think some of these bozos were paying out of their own pockets.
I would hazard a guess that the amout spent on treaty obligations doesn't come close to all the waste in government spending on trivial stuff.