Top dentists make $1 million on reserves

[PoliticalNick]

1, AAND, I agree.

Glad to hear it.

2, "Special status/rights", are you ready to ban unions and other groups that garner more rights and special status, via collective bargaining, position?

Getting something from an employer is different from getting special status or rights from the govt and being treated differently under the law.

Didn't you once have the right to walk down a public street with a fully loaded, fully automatic weapon? The overwhelming majority of Canadians do not have that right.

There is nothing in the constitution that says I don't still have that right. All law abiding citizens should have that right. Just because a bunch of power-hungry idiots in Ottawa write something on paper and convince their armed thugs to enforce it doesn't make it right.

3, The Indian Act, is what supposedly made all First Nations, Canadian.

And yet so many want to be non-Canadian (ie. sioux, haida, chippewa) except at certain times when they get their special entitlement.

 

[CDNBear]

Baloney. It's about culture, not race.

I think it's racist and sexist.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think it's racist and sexist.

Agreed. There is a lot of racism and sexism in plenty of government policy.

 

[L Gilbert]

I think it's racist and sexist.

The law is or the Act? I was referring to the law. DUHmpy said the law was racist.

 

[CDNBear]

Getting something from an employer is different from getting special status or rights from the govt and being treated differently under the law.

It's called collective bargaining. The Crown got land, we got "special status and rights".

It's the same thing, collective bargaining.

I'm not guaranteed anything a unionized worker gets via collective bargaining. I'm not guaranteed employment in a union shop. In fact, union members, are given preferential treatment to fill union shop jobs. Legally.

It is illegal to give preferential treatment based on race.

There is nothing in the constitution that says I don't still have that right. All law abiding citizens should have that right. Just because a bunch of power-hungry idiots in Ottawa write something on paper and convince their armed thugs to enforce it doesn't make it right.

Irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of Canadians, do not have the right.

And yet so many want to be non-Canadian (ie. sioux, haida, chippewa) except at certain times when they get their special entitlement.

Incorrect. That entitlement, by contract, isn't based on Canadian citizenship.

The law is or the Act? I was referring to the law. DUHmpy said the law was racist.

The Act, my bad. I thought you were referring to the Act.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I'm wondering if the main complaint here is about the dentists and their pay or about the ethnicity of the patients! :smile:

The ethnicity of the patients is not important. It's about taxpayers getting fleeced, and most aborginals still getting lousy dental service because they lack the money. It's pathetic how some people who make just about nothing, are creating millionaires.

The fed govt is paying 7x more than the private sector, so it's news. Everyone is following corrupt bueaucratic racist laws thanks to the Indian Act, so all is fine, so far. Let's recind it and move on and make Indians Canadians. Most Indians will be happier and more successful. The leadership will bleat, but so what.

 

[Cannuck]

The Crown got land, we got "special status and rights"..

Never thought I'd see the day where you would actually admit to that.

 

[CDNBear]

Never thought I'd see the day where you would actually admit to that.

Admit what?

That we were guaranteed certain concessions for the trading of land in our possession?

Or were you confused by the use of quotations to denote using PoliticalNicks terminology?

I can understand if it was the latter, well, the former or both for that matter. Your admitted stupidity must wreak havoc on your cognitive skills.

 

[Cannuck]

Admit what?

Seriously, see a doctor. You seem to getting worse with every post.

 

[CDNBear]

Seriously, see a doctor. You seem to getting worse with every post.

I can see how your admitted stupidity would make that simple question very hard for you to grasp.

 

[PoliticalNick]

It's called collective bargaining. The Crown got land, we got "special status and rights".

Which brings us back to whether Canada is still owned and ruled by the crown. Most say it isn't since independence was incorporated into the constitution in 1982. This means your deal is over since the crown cannot enforce its deal upon the separate sovereign nation of Canada.

I'm not guaranteed anything a unionized worker gets via collective bargaining. I'm not guaranteed employment in a union shop. In fact, union members, are given preferential treatment to fill union shop jobs. Legally.

Comparing the hiring practices of a unionized shop to the issue of native claims is not quite right. Then again a union shop can close its doors and reopen under a new corporation without the union, kind of like when the Dominion of Canada ceased and opened again as a sovereign nation in 1982.

It is illegal to give preferential treatment based on race.

That's why so many qualified white folk work in the band offices instead of all those untrained indians. :roll:

Irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of Canadians, do not have the right.

Actually the overwhelming majority of Canadians have been duped into believing they don't have the right by those that want to retain power over us.

Incorrect. That entitlement, by contract, isn't based on Canadian citizenship.

This is the contract that is null & void since one of the parties to it no longer exists here.

 

[CDNBear]

Which brings us back to whether Canada is still owned and ruled by the crown. Most say it isn't since independence was incorporated into the constitution in 1982. This means your deal is over since the crown cannot enforce its deal upon the separate sovereign nation of Canada.

This is the contract that is null & void since one of the parties to it no longer exists here.

If only that were true. First, the Constitution of 1867, then the Indian Act and then the Charter, even if we were to ignore the fact that Canada is a Commonwealth Nation and not a republic. Canada has always, for some strange reason, acknowledged the duty to Crown treaties.

Comparing the hiring practices of a unionized shop to the issue of native claims is not quite right.

Hiring practices was hardly the gist of my comment.

That's why so many qualified white folk work in the band offices instead of all those untrained indians. :roll:

Band Offices? If you're referring to FN governmental facilities, well duh. If you're talking about Native business, I know many non Native people hired to work in Native owned businesses.

Actually the overwhelming majority of Canadians have been duped into believing they don't have the right by those that want to retain power over us.

So you keep saying. I await your presence on the evening news.

 

[PoliticalNick]

If only that were true. First, the Constitution of 1867, then the Indian Act and then the Charter, even if we were to ignore the fact that Canada is a Commonwealth Nation and not a republic. Canada has always, for some strange reason, acknowledged the duty to Crown treaties.

You see that is the big debate, I want to claim we are still ruled by the crown so as to invoke the Magna Carta in claiming what I believe are my rights but if you talk to any government official whether elected or bureaucrat they will tell you we are completely independent and the crown has no actual legal standing.

Hiring practices was hardly the gist of my comment.

Sorry if I misunderstood your comparison.

So you keep saying. I await your presence on the evening news.

;-):lol:

Just got called to work for a few hours, look forward to continuing this discussion at a later time.

 

[CDNBear]

You see that is the big debate, I want to claim we are still ruled by the crown so as to invoke the Magna Carta in claiming what I believe are my rights but if you talk to any government official whether elected or bureaucrat they will tell you we are completely independent and the crown has no actual legal standing.

Can't help you there.

Sorry if I misunderstood your comparison.

No worries, sh!t happens.

;-):lol:

I'll chuckle only if it doesn't end with "Before turning the gun on himself", lol.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

You can invoke Magna Carta without a connection to the crown, the USA does it all the time. It is the spirit of the thing that is important -which is expanding rights, not limiting them. The technicalities are not of primary importantance.