Treaty Process Needs A New Look in BC/Caanda
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Re: Post in Transit
I'm insinuating that you and your buddies consider yourselves sovereign. I think you consider yourself Canadian
Run along Gerry. We don't want Ron to have to delete another two pages.
I'm insinuating that you and your buddies consider yourselves sovereign. I think you consider yourself Canadian
Run along Gerry. We don't want Ron to have to delete another two pages.
Re: Post in Transit
Would you be so kind as to tell us who my buddies are?
Since it seems to be an important part of your position.
So that would be yes. You are under the incorrect assumption that I consider myself both sovereign and Canadian?
Would you be so kind as to tell us who my buddies are?
Since it seems to be an important part of your position.
You had more to do with that, than Gh did.
Re: Post in Transit
At least you finally admit to what I've been saying. Why the change of heart?
At least you finally admit to what I've been saying. Why the change of heart?
Re: Post in Transit
Is your position so weak that being dishonest seems like an appropriate course of action?
Last edited:
Indians are nations by language, but not by power any longer.There was mutual need in the old days, now, the need is only one way, like the cash. A treaty is now just a tarted up social program.
Actually. The SCC ruled on what constitutes a Nation. Many of Canada's First Nations, meet the criteria.
Then you have the fairly powerful First Nations lobby. For good or bad, they do have power.
Do you have a mortgage?
In some respects, I can agree that some funding could be construed as tarted up social programming, while some programming, simply is. But the premise of the bulk of the treaties, pertains to a trade of property for X. Because the Crown made the treaties, which fall under contractual law, living documents. As the signatory that did not write the contract, the ambiguity that is X, will always come out in that parties favour.
And regardless of whether First Nations are Nations or not. Under contractual law, the heirs to those contracts, are still the contracts beneficiaries. Because that is how the contracts were written, and because of actions taken by the Crown, to hinder a party to said contracts.
You should read up on treaties and contractual law, at duhaime.org.
Last edited:
OK...tough question, and my take on it might be overly simplistic, but here
it is. I believe in sticking to ones word once a promise is given. You might
not be able to stick to it exactly...but if that's the case, you do the absolute
best that you can.
If I was to promise you something, Man to Man....and later on it turns out that
you're not a Man but a Woman, and later that you're not a Woman but a Horse,
and later I discover you're not a Horse but a Broom....doesn't change the fact
that I originally gave you my word on something.
Being a "nation" would depend on how each of us interperates the definition of
the term, I'd guess. Is it a term of convenience? Perhaps....but does that nullify
a promise given? I don't think so. I told you my view might seem overly simplistic.
The Treaties, when made, might have been short sighted, and promises based on
providing health care when that (at the time) entailed the local Doctor visiting and
doling out remedies from his bag has evolved for all of us over time, as has the
concept of an education when it (at the time) may have been based on the idea of
one teacher in an area in the old one-room school, but that too has evolved into
what it currently is, for all of us. The never ending contract without a sunset date
might seem insane as a contractual obligation with today's eyes, but that's the
deal that was made at that point, and agreed upon by both sides, so that's the
promise left to be upheld by those of us that follow.
There are two sides to the agreements (the Treaties), making all Canadians Treaty
Peoples, be they First Nations or new Immigrants who wish to enjoy everything that
Canada (& being Canadian) has to offer, and every other Canadian.
Are the Treaties a perfect solution? Nope...not even close, but they're a promise
given that was expedient at the time. Can they be renegotiated? Perhaps, as long as
both the terms are agreeable to everyone, or it doesn't happen...like NAFTA. NAFTA
has some real crap in it, but it's not changing unless both sides agree to do so, as it
is a promise given (in my mind anyway) like the Treaties.
That's where we disagree then. I'm very much a goal focused person and I believe you do what is right given your goals and vision. If that conflicts with your treaty then you walk away from the treaty. For example, if we had a treaty with South Africa before apartheid or Germany before the rise of Hitler we should have walked away from those treaties if it is not in our interest to continue to honor them.
That analogy may seem like a stretch but I posted a link (that you removed) to the website of one of the "nations" I have been referring to. Clearly, race is a criteria to be a member of their "nation" I find this thinking abhorrent in the 21st century and we should not honor any treaty with any "nation" that is racist in nature.
Ah.....OK. I see where you're coming from. Sorry 'bout yoinking that LINK.
I was try'n to pull out posts that contained personal attacks and insults and
quotes of those...starting on page five, and working backwards 'till it was
cleaned up....but stopped somewhere on page two once I was too tired
and just headed for bed, to be honest.
I was using the big shovel, & it's not very discriminating. Can you repost that
LINK?
I was try'n to pull out posts that contained personal attacks and insults and
quotes of those...starting on page five, and working backwards 'till it was
cleaned up....but stopped somewhere on page two once I was too tired
and just headed for bed, to be honest.
I was using the big shovel, & it's not very discriminating. Can you repost that
LINK?
Actually, if you enter a contract, under false pretenses, the contract can be voided.
What has happened is, one party to the contract, hindered, manipulated and otherwise interfered with the progress of the second party. In an attempt to break the contracts, without penalty.
It's tantamount to your mortgage company trying to cause you to default, by interfering with your ability to pay your mortgage.
Since the contract has a basis in law. The contract is enforced by law. The definition of Nation by law, is what matters.
Not what someones erroneous opinion of what a nation is.
This is part of the problem, people tend to view history with a contemporary eye.
Add to that, the erroneous nature in which the uninformed tend to generalize all treaties, and all First Nation signatories.
Agreed. They have been misused by both parties.
Absolutely. Several treaties have been renegotiated over the years. Some with mutually beneficial outcomes, some not so much.
One that comes to mind immediately, is the Coldwater Narrows reserve and the the renegotiated treaty, that had them surrendering their land. When the Gov't fraudulently explained the new treaty as an agreement to allow the Grassy Narrows Chippewa, to govern themselves.
Of course setting in motion a land claim that would see the remaining Narrows Bands, in Rama and surrounding area, reaping a windfall settlement this year. To the tune of approx $100,000/Band Member.
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/RC31-15-2003E.pdf
This of course, is but one example. I have many.
Back in the mid 1800's, the Six Nations of the Grand, renegotiated there treaty boundaries, as a means to pay off debt incurred by the implementation of farming upon the reserve. They eventually surrendered tracts of their reserve to cover those costs.
It's actually quite simple. Now a days, it's very much like union collective bargaining. The government wants to keep the land surrendered by the original treaty. But wishes to have some form of concession from a specific Band. Or, the Band wishes to have the Crown make some concession, with the Band offering either land or resources as leverage.
In the end though, so long as the Crown benefits from the contract, the contract is enforceable. As was said in the pre cleansed thread, in contractual law, any ambiguity, will benefit the party that did not write the contract.
It might not make everyone happy, but it is the law, and the law is what protects people from those that have no other agenda but bigotry and/or racial prejudice. On either side of the coin.
Last edited:
All these bullshyte questions...are the first Nations a nation unto themselves? or are they Canadians?....to a few here... they canot be both....bullshyte!
Answer me a simple question...
Quebec was recognized as a Nation in Parliament...
nation-vote
Does it mean that Quebecers are not Canadians?????
Answer me a simple question...
Quebec was recognized as a Nation in Parliament...
nation-vote
Does it mean that Quebecers are not Canadians?????
You're confusing heritage with race again.
If I could prove I was Howard Hughes heir, I would be eligible to benefit from his estate.
The original treaties weren't made with a race, they were made with the original occupants. They could have been Caucasian, Black, or Plaid. The race was irrelevant. Beneficiaries to those contracts, need only be eligible by heritage to the original signatories.
That's funny...
Since Nations like the Haudenosuanee have met the legal requirement, since long before the SCC's decision. Hell, since long before the SCC or Canada existed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll explain this to you again, since you seem to be having great difficulty separating two distinct points.
Treaties and eligibility, are not race based.
You make race, specifically mine, part of the discussion every chance you get.
The Haudenosaunee have met the international standard for Nation state, long before Canada existed.
Last edited: