Can someone explain to me this betrayal?
As it stands it sounds like they are getting exactly what they agreed to. Your 60 cents a day.
And British Betrayal is one thing… aren’t we Canadians?
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE POST
If your kids get sick at school, is it the school’s fault?
- The treaties back east were with the British Crown, and when Canada became an autonomous nation (no longer a colony) those treaties are arguably annulled.
Who made that argument? All legal documentation, including the Canadian Constitution states that the Treaties are “Recognised and Affirmed”
You may read those words in your country’s constitution here: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html along side your right to work and live anywhere in this country.
Nowhere else on earth, and nowhere else in history, do you see one group of people paying another group of people ‘rent’ for lands they conquered/colonized.
This is probably the root of your misunderstanding. No one was conquered. It was agreed by legal, international treaty that the lands inside Canada could be occupied and used by settlers in exchange for small concessions. If you spent a little time studying history you would know that. You might also know that the Spanish “Colonization of British Columbia” consisted of a single settlement and lasted only 6 years.
I encourage you to look into the legal history of indigenous relations with the Crown. It may help you understand these issues in a legal rather than racial lens. You may also sound more informed in your opinions. You can Start here: Read the 1969 Trudeau/Chretien “White Paper” which tired to abolish the Indian act, Indian status, and the treaties. Then read “The Red Paper” which was a response to the white-paper’s policies and the beginning of the road to having the Treaties Enshrined in the Constitution.
The White paper can be found here: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/inac-ainc/indian_policy-e/cp1969_e.pdf
The red paper can be found here: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/11690/8926
Se also, The Unjust Society by Harold Cardinal Who was a Harvard lawyer who also had input into “The Red Paper”
Other articles of interest may be some of the work of Alan Cairns, who was a professor at UBC and worked at length to try and reconcile indigenous rights with a liberal capitalist society.
Happy reading!
The White Paper and Red Paper are about -future- treaties. Which begs the question…
If there are already treaties in place. WHY ARE WE STILL SIGNING MORE?
Excuse me for taking the position of Trudeau, a past prime minister, and excuse me for not -going legal- from the immediate, I didn’t realize we were in a courtroom where we couldn’t speak the truth from our minds.
As for Canada not being ‘conquered’ or ‘colonized’. Why don’t you ask the Theresa Spence, or the AFN if Canada was ‘conquered’ or ‘colonized’ - they sure seem quick to remind us that it was.
Excuse me for noting the phrase “When the white man came”.
However you want to review this, the whole setup is a sham. It’s wrong. One group of people paying permanent tribute to another, legally based on race. With no end to servitude in sight, no end to double-standards, and more minority groups being classified as -indigenous-; or should I say “first” races on a regular basis.
And lets talk about what started this discussion. The blame game. The fact that all the -ills- of first nations are blamed on everyone else.
By your statements Canucks, we should have sent first nations to the residential schools. As they are our responsibility. ;)
No, the White and Red Paper WERE NOT about future treaties. Please read them.
Calder v. British Columbia (1973) WAS about future treaties. You may want to read that too. It will also help you understand why we are still signing more treaties.
The argument you are making states that all contract law and international treaty is “wrong.”
You may make that argument if you wish. But you should understand that that’s what your position rests on.
You can’t pick and choose the contracts that you think are “wrong” just because you don’t like them. Especially when they have been upheld numerous times by the supreme court. Either you stand behind property rights (contract law) and the rule of law and you live with the decisions you don’t like or we toss the entire foundation of democracy and capitalism out the window.
Lets not get started on the supreme court.
Tyrannical Law! ;)
No, the White and Red Paper WERE NOT about future treaties. Please read them.
Calder v. British Columbia (1973) WAS about future treaties. You may want to read that too. It will also help you understand why we are still signing more treaties.
The argument you are making states that all contract law and international treaty is “wrong.”
You may make that argument if you wish. But you should understand that that’s what your position rests on.
You can’t pick and choose the contracts that you think are “wrong” just because you don’t like them. Especially when they have been upheld numerous times by the supreme court. Either you stand behind property rights (contract law) and the rule of law and you live with the decisions you don’t like or we toss the entire foundation of democracy and capitalism out the window.
Actually the White paper was in fact (per my position) about future treaties, and abolishing land claims.
Please feel free to -read- more about them before you quote them incorrectly.
It was AFTER the Calder ruling that the government changed it’s position.
http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals12_e.html
The year following Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s rise to power in 1968, his government issued a White Paper on Aboriginal policy that argued that Canada shouldn’t negotiate any further treaties with the Native peoples. Trudeau believed treaties were something only signed between sovereign nations. His government also did not agree with Aboriginal land right claims, either, because they were too broad and unspecific.
The Calder Case, 1973
Frank Arthur Calder, a member of the federal Cabinet, sued the British Columbian government over land claims issues outstanding in the province with the Nisga’a tribe. The issue went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that aboriginal rights to the land did exist, particularly under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent government implementation of that proclamation.This ruling forced Pierre Trudeau’s government to reconsider its federal Aboriginal policy once again, which opened the door to discussion on the intent and meaning of all Indian treaties.
Also - Per the Canadian Government
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191#chp13
Most of the Indians of Quebec, British Columbia, and the Yukon are not parties to a treaty.
the fact is the treaties affect only half the Indians of Canada
So that’s what Trudeau was trying to do… interesting.
There were some other minor considerations, such as the annual provision of twine and ammunition.
The annuities have been paid regularly. The basic promise to set aside reserve land has been kept except in respect of the Indians of the Northwest Territories and a few bands in the northern parts of the Prairie Provinces. These Indians did not choose land when treaties were signed. The government wishes to see these obligations dealt with as soon as possible.
Wow the Rabbit Hole gets deeper.
So some tribes -transients- didn’t even HAVE land, or title… yet they claim, and we pay… Now we need to split the debate.
There are two types of first-nations. Those with Treaties. Those without.
Lets recap what we are discussing.
**1- Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not?
2- Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?
3- Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?
4- Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?
5- Is it time to progress past race based legislation?**
Garg, in your neck of the woods the native treaty issue is more hot. Like I said before, as you move west the natives were less pacified/diluted/weakened.
On the other hand, the war of 1812 really had very little western component. I had miss-wrote a previous sentence. The natives are largely responsible for ‘upper Canada’ being Canadian.
If it wasn’t for the Natives most of Canada would belong to the
nativesAmericans as the war of 1812 was won primarily with the help of native allies. Their reward was to be screwed over by the British. 60 cents a day is a bargain for that classic betrayal.
The land out West was very thin on Europeans loyal to the monarchy. Don’t underestimate the fear the US army would come in and crush the natives of the west and take that land for themselves as it was ‘un-claimed’. In order to secure the land and form what is now Canada, a certain bit of bribery was required. The alternative was to let the US pacify the natives at which they were getting quite good at. Do not forget the context of when those early compromises were made.
From the White Paper: “Finally, once Indian lands are securely within
Indian control, the anomaly of treaties between groups within society and
the government of that society will require that these treaties be reviewed
to - how they can be equitably ended.”
This is why I said the White paper was about past treaties. One of it’s goals was to have them annulled much like you suggested. So, if it planned to unilaterally cancel past contract obligations it obviously wasnt interesting in signing more. But it’s main goals lie with past treaties. (And I thought you didn’t like Chretien and Trudeau…) Also, If you read the Red Paper, you will understand why that first phrase “once Indian lands are securely within Indian control” is so antithetical to its meaning.
But onto your list of demands:
Lets recap what we are discussing.
**1- Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not?
2- Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?
3- Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?
4- Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?
5- Is it time to progress past race based legislation?**
Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?
Maybe not. Is the government responsible if you die waiting in the emergency ward? You would have died anyway right… ? What the government IS responsible for and has recently apologised and paid compensation for is the myriad other horrors (I wont list them all here.) befallen by the children forcibly removed from their homes and taken into custody by the state.
Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?
This is debatable. The government pays benefits to all “status Indians” you can find the definition yourself, but Status is not automatic and you have to apply. This is partly because not all indigenous people are covered under treaty and the government would prefer to keep these rather arbitrary divisions to a minimum. How can we define who was a descendent of which treaty-band when records were not kept at the time and people have been moving and intermarrying for a century since then? We basically decide if you are part of this political division in society based on weather your parents were part of the political group entitled to benefits. Plus it helps keep the calls for more treaties to be signed quiet, something I would expect you to approve of Garg.
Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?
No.
Is it time to progress past race based legislation?
What race-based legislation?
- Asking if treaties should be “phased out” is like asking if the Government should “phase out” your ownership to your house. It wouldn’t be legal and would not stand up under rule of law. So in short:
Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not? The question of should disappears as we discover that it is impossible. So the answer is simply: No.
Canuck… when are you going to understand that legality is just a bunch of people in a room agreeing to whatever process they desire.
If everyone on earth was dead except for you, me, and the person who killed everyone else. And we agreed to hunt said person down, and jail/execute him for his crimes. That’s Legal.
To prove this point in direct relation to the Indian Act. Â Please familiarize yourself with EMMINENT DOMAIN law.
In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to “be made whole” by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.
In the public interest, the ‘legal’ government can authorize basically whatever it wants, so long as the people don’t revolt, and the people who enforce the rules are willing to follow through. (look at the HST!)
So much for ‘Legal’… hah!
Moral however… that is another question, and of course I argue the status-quo is immoral.
Also of note… during periods of war/conflict, it’s regular that property rights are ‘legally’ phased out by governments.
-Consider your friends in the soviet union with the annexation of Poland.
-Or the German invasion of poland.
-Or the American military installations built in Iraq.
-Or Canadian bases in Afghanistan.
-Or Argentina’s claim on the Falklands
They were all legal.
We are legally killing people (taliban), and taking away their property, TODAY, whilst not even in our own country!!!
Legality is mostly a ruse, for the powerful/influencial to assert their authority over the weak, whilst making the masses play along.
If a supreme court judge suddenly decided tomorrow that the metis were suddenly NOT status indian, and infact that there were NO status indians period, constitutional, right or wrong, moral or immoral, THAT WOULD BE THE LAW LOL! Until appealed…
Anyone need a beer? I’m headed to the fridge anyways……
I’ll take 2.
Not tonight thanks Malachi. I like to not drink on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to compensate for the two days off I have had(Sunday and Monday), when I drink more than the days I work.
Nice of you to offer though.
I hate Tuesdays!
To prove this point in direct relation to the Indian Act. Â Please familiarize yourself with EMMINENT DOMAIN law.
In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to “be made whole” by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.
So lets justly compensate them, with say… access to education, healthcare and housing etc. That’s basically exactly what happened Garg! You are arguing in circles.
Furthermore, you cant have a discussion about government policy in Canada if you are going to suggest that rule of law does not apply. Rule of law did not apply in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or during a war in a country that does not have a constitution or rule of law enshrined thereunder. Which is why those examples are asinine and why we value rule of law in Canada.
So we have come to an impasse. You believe that rule of law is irrelevant and I do not. Thank you for the discussion until this point but it cannot continue any further.
I’ll have that beer now Malachi. :-)
To prove this point in direct relation to the Indian Act. � Please familiarize yourself with EMMINENT DOMAIN law.
In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to “be made whole” by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.
So lets justly compensate them, with say… access to education, healthcare and housing etc. That’s basically exactly what happened Garg! You are arguing in circles.
Furthermore, you cant have a discussion about government policy in Canada if you are going to suggest that rule of law does not apply. Rule of law did not apply in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or during a war in a country that does not have a constitution or rule of law enshrined thereunder. Which is why those examples are asinine and why we value rule of law in Canada.
So we have come to an impasse. You believe that rule of law is irrelevant and I do not. Thank you for the discussion until this point but it cannot continue any further. Â
I’ll have that beer now Malachi. :-)
Canuck, HELLO. You don’t compensate them if you DON’T GET THE LAND. That’s arguing in circles.
And it’s propostourous to believe that 100% of north america ‘belonged’ to the first nations in the first place.
Therefore your colonial ‘rule of law’ applies and canadians today don’t owe them a red cent ;)
Emminent domain IS LAW. The white paper would have compensated the first nations once and for all, and this would be done. Arguing that they are owed a debt for the next billion years + is retarded.
All I see here is that you entirely lost the debate on this issue.
We did get the land. Where you livin right now?
Emminent domain is law. We followed it.
The white paper sought to unilaterally cancel contractual obligations which is against the law.
The British government believed that the lands west of Quebec “belonged” to indigenous people. Hence the entire motivation for negotiating the treaties on the first place. They were acquired legally by contract to the original inhabitants and every shred of law and legislation since then has upheld this belief.
I know you would love to rewrite history Garg. Wouldn’t we all? But we just can’t.
Just remember that the purpose of government is to change and regulate law.
For example, pot is illegal in Canada, but there are people who petition to change that, and one day the law will change.
Banking laws, and contract laws have changed drastically over the last 100 years.
I completely fail to understand how there is law beyond the law… other than morality?
I completely fail to understand how there is law beyond the law… other than morality?
Well that’s something we shall have to remedy, isn’t it?
I recommend you take out a book on Common Law from your local library. This will help you understand the legal system that has existed in the English speaking world for the last millennium or so and clear up this idea of “law beyond the law” and its relationship with morality. I am sure it will be very enlightening for you. :-) It will also help you understand why no one, including the government, is above the law and why said government cannot unilaterally cancel contracts or change elements of the country’s constitution.
Once you have a good grasp of the common law you can move on to the method of Constitutional amendment in Canada, which would be required to remove Indigenous treaty rights from Canadian law. At which point you may write to your member of Parliament. (Is it still Green Party MP Elizabeth May? ) And ask her to put forward a private members bill to amend the Canadian constitution to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples of their treaty rights.
RE: I don’t get it… Can someone help me out here?
I hope I have helped you out here and you get a little better what’s going on with indigenous rights in Canada. :-)
I completely fail to understand how there is law beyond the law… other than morality?
Well that’s something we shall have to remedy, isn’t it?
I recommend you take out a book on Common Law from your local library. This will help you understand the legal system that has existed in the English speaking world for the last millennium or so and clear up this idea of “law beyond the law” and its relationship with morality. I am sure it will be very enlightening for you. :-) It will also help you understand why no one, including the government, is above the law and why said government cannot unilaterally cancel contracts or change elements of the country’s constitution.
Once you have a good grasp of the common law you can move on to the method of Constitutional amendment in Canada, which would be required to remove Indigenous treaty rights from Canadian law. At which point you may write to your member of Parliament. (Is it still Green Party MP Elizabeth May? ) And ask her to put forward a private members bill to amend the Canadian constitution to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples of their treaty rights.
RE: I don’t get it… Can someone help me out here?
I hope I have helped you out here and you get a little better what’s going on with indigenous rights in Canada. :-)
Canuck,
I really do appreciate that you are trying to help. But I think you are not understanding why we have parliament, and more particularily why we have a senate (House of sober second thought)…
These exists so that laws can change. You are correct in that ‘rule of law’ stipulates that no one is above the law. However, the law is a moving target.
For example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/12/dan-savage-canada-gay-marriage_n_1202917.html
Abortion. Once illegal, there is now NO law in canada. And there are those who push both ways on this item.
Emminent Domain, etc, etc, etc, I am sure we can both agree, that there are MANY items we can discuss. Including treaties/protocol’s that were legally binding, that we’ve abandoned. Including your favourite Kyoto Accord!
From what I have read, it is your position that we cannot exit the “contract” we are in with the natives, under any circumstance legally. (correct me if I’m wrong)
The point of fact is that we can. And guess what?!?! Even if you’re right, and it’s illegal. Oh well. Lets get it done, and I’ll do the jail time for everyone. Case closed.
From what I am reading you have no concept of how legislation, parliament, or our legal system works. I highly encourage you to come to model parliament in January 2014 (those most procedurally accurate model in the world). and SIT IN THE BC LEGISLATURE debate me, and watch me pass these changes in a room of a 100 politically savy opponents and peers, right before your eyes.
BTW you have to wear a suit and tie to UMP, and a blazer, unless you actually run for government, and formally petition for the ‘rules’ or rather ‘laws’ to change.
But that’s the point isn’t it? Laws change because they need to change. And the indian act needs to be abolish, or radically altered. All of which is legal. The authority of elected parliament, and the governor general/queen allows for this.
I’m also going to take the pains to remind you that however IMMORAL the nuremberg laws were. That they were entirely LEGAL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Law
Hence my previous comments about law being a ruse. As long as it’s agreed to by the people in authority. The Law is what it is.
