NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest fiasco (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=37911995-d320-46f0-933c-c8036356eb06&k=47787), in my city of residence.

"EDMONTON - The Edmonton Police Service has been violating its own internal policy by dumping homeless people from the Whyte Avenue area in inner-city neighbourhoods, according to a copy of the policy obtained by The Edmonton Journal.

And legal experts say sections of the policy, which police insist gives them the legal right to relocate drunken street people, violates the Charter of Rights.

Criminal defence lawyer Robbie Davidson said police are breaching their own policy when they simply dump people in neighbourhoods.

"They have an obligation to confirm that someone wants to take them and to confirm that person is sober and responsible enough to take care of them."

Both Davidson and University of Toronto law professor Peter Rosenthal say the police have no legal right to pick up and transport drunken homeless people who are not a danger to themselves or others.

"In my view, the police have no legal authority to take them anywhere," Rosenthal said."
Granted, this isn't nearly as bad as the Starlight Tours (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/starlighttours.html), though in -30 degree weather, being dumped in the inner city is not necessarily any better than being dumped outside the city limits.

During the Neil Stonechild (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/stonechild/) inquiry, it came out that a large reason police dump 'drunks' and other undesireables, was to avoid the paperwork involved in locking them up for the night. It's much better to kidnap, and transport a person who may or may not have done anything they can actually arrest them for after all.

Point being, this is nothing new, nothing extraordinary, and has been going on for a long, long time. Rather pathetic.

The crimes perpetrated against indigenous North Americans - not just in Canada - are too grave to ignore, and must be addressed. I believe some sort of restitution would be a good way to start. While we can never erase the crimes of the past, if we can alleviate their lingering effects, then alleviate them we should.

Edmonton should be nuked.

The crimes perpetrated against indigenous North Americans - not just in Canada - are too grave to ignore, and must be addressed. I believe some sort of restitution would be a good way to start. While we can never erase the crimes of the past, if we can alleviate their lingering effects, then alleviate them we should.

Well talk to the Canadian government who is still sitting on the promised Residential Schools Settlement (http://www.firstperspective.ca/fp_combo_template.php?path=20070201prentice) that it agreed to over two years ago.

Edmonton should be nuked.

Give me some warning first, 'eh?

Oh, and don't forget Saskatoon...for kicks they freeze Indians to death.

I'm just waiting for a fellow Albertan to display rednecked pride in the way we treat the homeless.

"Fucking drunks! What do they expect anyway?"

Well talk to the Canadian government who is still sitting on the promised Residential Schools Settlement (http://www.firstperspective.ca/fp_combo_template.php?path=20070201prentice) that it agreed to over two years ago.

It sickens me how many broken promises have been made to Native Americans* over the centuries. No decent gentleman could accept the way they have been, and continue to be, mistreated.

*Native North Americans, rather

Give me some warning first, 'eh?

Oh, and don't forget Saskatoon...for kicks they freeze Indians to death.'splains why you now so much about the lame-ities of your police. Ours are much nobler and simply beat our homeless.

It sickens me how many broken promises have been made to Native Americans* over the centuries. No decent gentleman could accept the way they have been, and continue to be, mistreated.

*Native North Americans, rather

I am suspicious of these words: 'decent gentleman'.

In any case, aboriginal peoples throughout the Americas have had a rough time of it...some worse than others...but Canada likes to pretend its shit doesn't stink when it comes to what happens here.

I am suspicious of these words: 'decent gentleman'.

In any case, aboriginal peoples throughout the Americas have had a rough time of it...some worse than others...but Canada likes to pretend its shit doesn't stink when it comes to what happens here.

It seems Canada is no better than the U.S. in that regard. :(

Is there any country that treats its aboriginal people with decency and humanity?

'splains why you now so much about the lame-ities of your police. Ours are much nobler and simply beat our homeless.

Yeah, we just let teenagers (http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/Edmonton/2006/05/17/1583806-sun.html) do that.

So what are we talking about? The homeless are taken from one area and relocated to another. Big deal. They're homeless in the first area and they're still homeless in the new area.

Or is it like relocating squirrels? They can't get back to their stores of nuts, so they starve?

Okay, at -30 degrees (F or C), homeless people should be brought in off the streets before they're frozen solid.

I am suspicious of these words: 'decent gentleman'.

In any case, aboriginal peoples throughout the Americas have had a rough time of it...some worse than others...but Canada likes to pretend its shit doesn't stink when it comes to what happens here.

Methinks (FTW? Methinks is now a word? Stupid FF) that you lack the organization that say the blacks had. Methinks you should start burning radom shit, until you get your way.

Methinks (FTW? Methinks is now a word? Stupid FF) that you lack the organization that say the blacks had. Methinks you should start burning radom shit, until you get your way.

Indians need a Martin Luther King Jr?

So what are we talking about? The homeless are taken from one area and relocated to another. Big deal. They're homeless in the first area and they're still homeless in the new area.

Or is it like relocating squirrels? They can't get back to their stores of nuts, so they starve?

Okay, at -30 degrees (F or C), homeless people should be brought in off the streets before they're frozen solid.
The point is, they are taken from one area (a popular strip called Whyte Ave) where they are apparently an eyesore, and dumped in neighbourhoods that are basically one big eyesore. So what is the purpose? To clean up the neighbourhood that flows with money. Not only that...there are degrees of homelessness. Some of the people on the Ave actually do have makeshift shelters, or places they can claim to sleep...in a neighbourhood they are unfamiliar with, it's unlikely they'll find that shelter in time.

But it's more about the practice itself...if they want to get these people inside, then take them to a shelter...don't dump them like stray dogs.

Not only that...but it's false imprisonment. They aren't arresting these people, they are never actually taking them into custody, and it runs directly against the force's own policy. If they did it to you or me, they'd have a lawsuit on their hands. Well, they've been doing it to the homeless for years...and finally, that lawsuit is forthcoming.

Indians need a Martin Luther King Jr?
Or a Malcolm X.

Methinks (FTW? Methinks is now a word? Stupid FF) that you lack the organization that say the blacks had. Methinks you should start burning radom shit, until you get your way.

We don't just burn random shit. We take things the fuck over.

Oka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis).
Caledonia (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/)
Burnt Church (http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/08/14/lobster000814)

We also block Constitutional reforms (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1180-6773/politics_economy/meech_lake/) that do not work for aboriginal people.

You guys just need a Soylent Green factory.

Indians need a Martin Luther King Jr?

We had Chief Dan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_George) George (http://thegoldweb.com/voices/chiefgeorge.htm). He was asked to give a speech on Canada's centennial celebration in Vancouver in 1967.


""How long have I known you, oh Canada? A hundred years? Yes, a hundred years. And many many 'seelanum" more. And today, when you celebrate your hundred years, oh Canada, I am sad for all the Indian people throughout the land.

For I have known you when your forests were mine; when they gave me my meat and my clothing. I have known you in your streams and rivers where your fish flashed and danced in the sun, where the waters said come, come and eat of my abundance. I have known you in the freedom of your winds. And my spirit, like the winds, once roamed your good lands.

But in the long hundred years since the white man came, I have seen my freedom disappear like the salmon going mysteriously out to sea. The white man's strange customs which I could not understand, pressed down upon me until I could no longer breathe.

When I fought to protect my land and my home, I was called a savage. When I neither understood nor welcomed this way of life, I was called lazy. When I tried to rule my people, I was stripped of my authority.

My nation was ignored in your history textbooks - they were little more important in the history of Canada than the buffalo that ranged the plains. I was ridiculed in your plays and motion pictures, when I drank you fire water, I got drunk -- very, very drunk. And I forgot.

Oh Canada, how can I celebrate with you this Centenary, this hundred years? Shall I thank you for the reserves that are left to me of my beautiful forests? Fore the canned fish of my rivers? For the loss of my pride and authority, even among my own people? For the lack of my will to fight back? No! I must forget what's past and gone.

Oh, God in Heaven! Give me back the courage of the olden Chiefs. Let me wrestle with my surroundings. Let me again, as in the days of old, dominate my environment. Let me humbly accept this new culture and through it rise up and go on.

Oh, God! Like the Thunderbird of old I shall rise again out of the sea; I shall grab the instruments of the white man's success---his education, his skills, and with these new tools I shall build my race into the proudest segment of your society. Before I follow the great Chiefs who have gone before us, oh Canada, I shall see these things come to pass.

I shall see our young braves and our chiefs sitting in the houses of law and government, ruling and being ruled by the knowledge and freedom of our great land. So shall we shatter the barriers of our isolation. So shall the next hundred years be the greatest and proudest in the proud history of our tribes and nations."

We don't just burn random shit. We take things the fuck over.

Oka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis).
Caledonia (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/)
Burnt Church (http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/08/14/lobster000814)

We also block Constitutional reforms (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1180-6773/politics_economy/meech_lake/) that do not work for aboriginal people.If I have learned anything from 911, inducing a real fear in small pockets doesn't mean shit. What you gotta do, is create a vague fear everywhere, at which point we might negotiate.

You guys just need a Soylent Green factory.
Don't forget Soylent Soda.

The point is, they are taken from one area (a popular strip called Whyte Ave) where they are apparently an eyesore, and dumped in neighbourhoods that are basically one big eyesore. So what is the purpose? To clean up the neighbourhood that flows with money. Not only that...there are degrees of homelessness. Some of the people on the Ave actually do have makeshift shelters, or places they can claim to sleep...in a neighbourhood they are unfamiliar with, it's unlikely they'll find that shelter in time.

But it's more about the practice itself...if they want to get these people inside, then take them to a shelter...don't dump them like stray dogs.

Not only that...but it's false imprisonment. They aren't arresting these people, they are never actually taking them into custody, and it runs directly against the force's own policy. If they did it to you or me, they'd have a lawsuit on their hands. Well, they've been doing it to the homeless for years...and finally, that lawsuit is forthcoming.
The difference is that you and I aren't indigent. There's another word that describes it better, but I can't think of it now. But the difference is that we have someplace that we're supposed to be anchored to -- the homeless don't.

I guess what it comes down to is that I can't see what's wrong with a city that wants to prohibit the homeless from homesteading in either public or private areas. Other than maybe a shelter and a place to get a meal, what does the government really owe to a homeless person?

If I have learned anything from 911, inducing a real fear in small pockets doesn't mean shit. What you gotta do, is create a vague fear everywhere, at which point we might negotiate.
Hahahahaa, no worries, we've gone one step further. Because of recent Supreme Court decisions, Delgamuukw in particular, a fiduciary responsibility has been recognised between the government and aboriginal peoples, and extends in a very great way towards commercial enterprises as well. There is a duty to consult that impedes unhindered economic growth, but that is nonetheless unavoidable. Now that we MUST have a say in multi-billion dollar projects such as the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, various diamond and uranium mines, down to lumber harvesting and hydro-electric plants, suddenly the 'aboriginal perspective' matters. Because ignoring it means a loss in profit.

Other than maybe a shelter and a place to get a meal, what does the government really owe to a homeless person?

Human dignity? just a guess...

Hahahahaa, no worries, we've gone one step further. Because of recent Supreme Court decisions, Delgamuukw in particular, a fiduciary responsibility has been recognised between the government and aboriginal peoples, and extends in a very great way towards commercial enterprises as well. There is a duty to consult that impedes unhindered economic growth, but that is nonetheless unavoidable. Now that we MUST have a say in multi-billion dollar projects such as the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, various diamond and uranium mines, down to lumber harvesting and hydro-electric plants, suddenly the 'aboriginal perspective' matters. Because ignoring it means a loss in profit.
I hope your government actually lives up to it. Ours has the idea that it should only obey the law when it is convenient.

The difference is that you and I aren't indigent. There's another word that describes it better, but I can't think of it now. But the difference is that we have someplace that we're supposed to be anchored to -- the homeless don't. Ah, but you see, the point of this whole thing is that possession of a home or not in no way abrogates a person's Charter right (s. 9)not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

I guess what it comes down to is that I can't see what's wrong with a city that wants to prohibit the homeless from homesteading in either public or private areas. Other than maybe a shelter and a place to get a meal, what does the government really owe to a homeless person?

Well, there are a number of problems:

1) If the city wants to prohibit homelessness in public, they must ensure that there are enough shelters to house them. Simply making it illegal (not the issue here by the way) to be homeless is a fundamental violation of human rights...you would essentially be punishing people for living, when no other options for housing were actually available to them. Check it out, there are actually a few US SCOTUS cases on point, though I can't remember the names right now.

2) Simply moving homeless people from one locale to another does absolutely nothing, and says, in essence, "people from neighbourhood A deserve to be free from the sight of homeless people, but people in neighbourhood B are not".

3) The government owes homeless people the same basic Constitutional rights as any other people in Canada.

I hope your government actually lives up to it. Ours has the idea that it should only obey the law when it is convenient.

Oh, you bet...there are numerous justification clauses that allow economic growth to continue despite our protests...but we bleed millions and millions out of the pockets of big business in the meantime because they simply can not avoid consulation as a bare minimum.

It's much better to actually work with us, especially when the Supreme Court could turn around and decide that a certain project should be taken over by us. It may not happen, but the threat is real enough.

Oh, you bet...there are numerous justification clauses that allow economic growth to continue despite our protests...but we bleed millions and millions out of the pockets of big business in the meantime because they simply can not avoid consulation as a bare minimum.

It's much better to actually work with us, especially when the Supreme Court could turn around and decide that a certain project should be taken over by us. It may not happen, but the threat is real enough.Now you just gotta get the average citizen to respect you.

Have fun with that.

Now you just gotta get the average citizen to respect you.

Have fun with that.

*sigh*

*sigh*
:p

This reminds me of a little story about a man who was treated likewise. His name? John J. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Rambo.jpg - maybe it's time someone sent someone a little message?

Hehehehehehehehehehe :D

Hehehehehehehehehehe :D

I don't like the sound of that.

I don't like the sound of that.

Oh wait, you're right. It should have been:

MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Oh wait, you're right. It should have been:

MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!*is scared*

Oh wait, you're right. It should have been:

MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MachineGunSmiley.gif
;)

Beautiful!

Beautiful!
Yes, you are. :p

Yes, you are. :p

Awwwww:fluffle:

Sheesh...where are all the people who swear all I do is badmouth the US?

Sheesh...where are all the people who swear all I do is badmouth the US?
Mmmh.http://www.section.at/img/smiley/gruebel.gif

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/nixweiss.gifI dunno!

Is there any country that treats its aboriginal people with decency and humanity?

New Zealand likes to think it does. Relatively speaking, Maori have been much luckier than other dark-skinned Indigenous peoples in British colonies. But they've often had a very rough time of it too.

The crimes perpetrated against indigenous North Americans - not just in Canada - are too grave to ignore, and must be addressed. I believe some sort of restitution would be a good way to start. While we can never erase the crimes of the past, if we can alleviate their lingering effects, then alleviate them we should.
Restitution? We've been paying natives millions of dollars a year for decades. I think that counts as restitution enough.

I'm just waiting for a fellow Albertan to display rednecked pride in the way we treat the homeless.

"Fucking drunks! What do they expect anyway?"
Well, they did voluntarily become drunk. It's not like they're totally without blame, here.
We also block Constitutional reforms (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1180-6773/politics_economy/meech_lake/) that do not work for aboriginal people.
For that one, I am eternally thankful.

Thank you, Elijah Harper.
Hahahahaa, no worries, we've gone one step further. Because of recent Supreme Court decisions, Delgamuukw in particular, a fiduciary responsibility has been recognised between the government and aboriginal peoples, and extends in a very great way towards commercial enterprises as well. There is a duty to consult that impedes unhindered economic growth, but that is nonetheless unavoidable. Now that we MUST have a say in multi-billion dollar projects such as the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, various diamond and uranium mines, down to lumber harvesting and hydro-electric plants, suddenly the 'aboriginal perspective' matters. Because ignoring it means a loss in profit.
Of course, now you've actually given ExxonMobil a reason to "accidentally" poison you all.

Incidentally, why do you WANT to hinder economic growth?

The crimes perpetrated against indigenous North Americans - not just in Canada - are too grave to ignore, and must be addressed. I believe some sort of restitution would be a good way to start. While we can never erase the crimes of the past, if we can alleviate their lingering effects, then alleviate them we should.

Ahh yes let's give them money. That will solve all problems. How about starting with the alcoholism and drug abuse. If one is not on the drink or drugs then it is a lot easier for them to get a job and live productive lives. Giving money so they can do the same is insane. Also tired of hearing of restitution/reparations bullcrap.

Ahh yes let's give them money. That will solve all problems. How about starting with the alcoholism and drug abuse. If one is not on the drink or drugs then it is a lot easier for them to get a job and live productive lives. Giving money so they can do the same is insane. Also tired of hearing of restitution/reparations bullcrap.

Pity the government is legally obliged to do that, since they did this thing called breaking contracts.

Pity the government is legally obliged to do that, since they did this thing called breaking contracts.
Did they?

The government continues to abide by many of the treaties signed. The point of contention is that the natives insist that part of the agreement wasn't written down, which I think is an absurd position.

Did they?

The government continues to abide by many of the treaties signed.

Contradict yourself in the next sentence. Ouch.

Contradict yourself in the next sentence. Ouch.
Show me a contradiction, there.

I asked a question (questions contain no information), and then I made a claim that doesn't require any treaties were broken (some may have ceased to apply, or been overriden by later agreements).

I am suspicious of these words: 'decent gentleman'.
Why?

Other than maybe a shelter and a place to get a meal, what does the government really owe to a homeless person?
Does it always have to veer on the ideological side of things with you?

The difference is that you and I aren't indigent. There's another word that describes it better, but I can't think of it now. But the difference is that we have someplace that we're supposed to be anchored to -- the homeless don't.

I guess what it comes down to is that I can't see what's wrong with a city that wants to prohibit the homeless from homesteading in either public or private areas. Other than maybe a shelter and a place to get a meal, what does the government really owe to a homeless person?

The government owes homeless people subsidized housing and rehab programs. A great many of the homeless people in the industrial world are employed but earn so little that they can't afford rent, and there isn't nearly enough affordable housing available because real estate developers aren't ever compelled to develop these less-profitable projects. The other critical missing element is rehabilitation, and that involves much more than just getting people to kick drugs or whatever other habit they have. It means reintroducing them to society, helping them connect to a community, finding them employment and housing and social services, and giving them a chance to live with dignity. Oddly enough, such programs are actually very much in line with a strong economy. The homeless, the drug-addicted, and the petty criminals are drains on a society and an economy. The employed and law-abiding are benefits to a society and an economy. A social safety net is not a burden. It's an investment.

The government owes homeless people subsidized housing and rehab programs. A great many of the homeless people in the industrial world are employed but earn so little that they can't afford rent, and there isn't nearly enough affordable housing available because real estate developers aren't ever compelled to develop these less-profitable projects. The other critical missing element is rehabilitation, and that involves much more than just getting people to kick drugs or whatever other habit they have. It means reintroducing them to society, helping them connect to a community, finding them employment and housing and social services, and giving them a chance to live with dignity. Oddly enough, such programs are actually very much in line with a strong economy. The homeless, the drug-addicted, and the petty criminals are drains on a society and an economy. The employed and law-abiding are benefits to a society and an economy. A social safety net is not a burden. It's an investment.
Only because you're only looking at the people it helps, rather than the people it hurts (everyone who funds it, plus those who fall into it but would not were it not there).

Other than maybe a shelter and a place to get a meal, what does the government really owe to a homeless person?

Does it always have to veer on the ideological side of things with you?
That's more of a practical question. And it's all ideological, if you get right down to it.

Only because you're only looking at the people it helps, rather than the people it hurts (everyone who funds it, plus those who fall into it but would not were it not there).
QFT. :)

The latest fiasco (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=37911995-d320-46f0-933c-c8036356eb06&k=47787), in my city of residence.

"EDMONTON - The Edmonton Police Service has been violating its own internal policy by dumping homeless people from the Whyte Avenue area in inner-city neighbourhoods, according to a copy of the policy obtained by The Edmonton Journal.

And legal experts say sections of the policy, which police insist gives them the legal right to relocate drunken street people, violates the Charter of Rights.

Criminal defence lawyer Robbie Davidson said police are breaching their own policy when they simply dump people in neighbourhoods.

"They have an obligation to confirm that someone wants to take them and to confirm that person is sober and responsible enough to take care of them."

Both Davidson and University of Toronto law professor Peter Rosenthal say the police have no legal right to pick up and transport drunken homeless people who are not a danger to themselves or others.

"In my view, the police have no legal authority to take them anywhere," Rosenthal said."
Granted, this isn't nearly as bad as the Starlight Tours (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/starlighttours.html), though in -30 degree weather, being dumped in the inner city is not necessarily any better than being dumped outside the city limits.

During the Neil Stonechild (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/stonechild/) inquiry, it came out that a large reason police dump 'drunks' and other undesireables, was to avoid the paperwork involved in locking them up for the night. It's much better to kidnap, and transport a person who may or may not have done anything they can actually arrest them for after all.

Point being, this is nothing new, nothing extraordinary, and has been going on for a long, long time. Rather pathetic.

this is not a just a native issue ...police around the globe have been doing the same with drunks for decades...rather than throw drunks in jail they take them for a ride and let them walk it out...I have two family members both white, one took the tour, he said he was out of control and appreciated the ride out of town rather than a night in jail...the other was to drunk to walk so he spent the night locked up...

I don't mean to imply that doing the same to drunks in the dead of winter was a smart idea that was a criminal lack of judgment...a night in jail should have been the logical choice...

The latest fiasco (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=37911995-d320-46f0-933c-c8036356eb06&k=47787), in my city of residence.

"EDMONTON - The Edmonton Police Service has been violating its own internal policy by dumping homeless people from the Whyte Avenue area in inner-city neighbourhoods, according to a copy of the policy obtained by The Edmonton Journal.

And legal experts say sections of the policy, which police insist gives them the legal right to relocate drunken street people, violates the Charter of Rights.

Criminal defence lawyer Robbie Davidson said police are breaching their own policy when they simply dump people in neighbourhoods.

"They have an obligation to confirm that someone wants to take them and to confirm that person is sober and responsible enough to take care of them."

Both Davidson and University of Toronto law professor Peter Rosenthal say the police have no legal right to pick up and transport drunken homeless people who are not a danger to themselves or others.

"In my view, the police have no legal authority to take them anywhere," Rosenthal said."
Granted, this isn't nearly as bad as the Starlight Tours (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/starlighttours.html), though in -30 degree weather, being dumped in the inner city is not necessarily any better than being dumped outside the city limits.

During the Neil Stonechild (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/stonechild/) inquiry, it came out that a large reason police dump 'drunks' and other undesireables, was to avoid the paperwork involved in locking them up for the night. It's much better to kidnap, and transport a person who may or may not have done anything they can actually arrest them for after all.

Point being, this is nothing new, nothing extraordinary, and has been going on for a long, long time. Rather pathetic.

Why don't they take them to designated shelters where they can sleep in warmth and relative comfort for the night, maybe get a meal or two? This sounds positively barbaric.

How about job training and workfare to pay the rent on a decent but spare apartment somewhere?

Why don't they take them to designated shelters where they can sleep in warmth and relative comfort for the night, maybe get a meal or two? This sounds positively barbaric.

barbaric for most people yes...call me a racist if you like but Canadian natives maybe the toughest people on the face of the planet, their ability to stoical withstand pain and cold is unbelievable, what we whimper and whine about they accept...but the wisdom of leaving men who are barely able to function in that cold to fend for themselves however was stupid...

barbaric for most people yes...call me a racist if you like but Canadian natives maybe the toughest people on the face of the planet, their ability to stoical withstand pain and cold is unbelievable, what we whimper and whine about they accept...but the wisdom of leaving men who are barely able to function in that cold to fend for themselves however was stupid...

In thirty below weather? They're not superheroes. It's a good way to get frostbite or die from hypothermia.

Why don't they take them to designated shelters where they can sleep in warmth and relative comfort for the night, maybe get a meal or two? This sounds positively barbaric.

How about job training and workfare to pay the rent on a decent but spare apartment somewhere?

I know one of deceased was a student with an apartment or home, acquaintances refused him admittance to their home because he was either medicated or drunk, afterwards the police picked him up and took for ride evidently he wasn't sober enough to walk home...

I lived there at the time it was brutally cold so I have little sympathy for the police involved

In thirty below weather? They're not superheroes. It's a good way to get frostbite or die from hypothermia.

actually seeing them walk around in a light coat, no gloves, no hat at 40 below was not uncommon, defies belief they could stand it...northern people are better adapted to withstand cold than others...that's not racist, it just a fact, even they have limits however...

New Zealand likes to think it does. Relatively speaking, Maori have been much luckier than other dark-skinned Indigenous peoples in British colonies. But they've often had a very rough time of it too.

The Maori have been very active in helping themselves as well. They organised themselves underground to ensure the survival of their language, and they have fought long and hard to retain traditional methods of education and governance. They made it very difficult for New Zealand to ignore them.

Restitution? We've been paying natives millions of dollars a year for decades. I think that counts as restitution enough.

Sorry? Consider it rent. And it's insufficient.

Incidentally, why do you WANT to hinder economic growth?

The goal is not actually to hinder economic growth, though that is how it is perceived. The focus is on ensuring that these mega-projects don't destroy our territories. Federal environmental standards are pathetic...land claims settlements give us the leverage to enforce much stricter standards. We are looking to the long run, because we'll have to live with what is left over. Very simply it boils down to this: we want a say in what happens in and with our lands.

Oooh, I'd say this is another good news story...a BC cop is up on charges of torture (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e15dbbef-59d5-401d-a23c-f95fb084a72f&k=43167). Good news in that it's being taken seriously, and also good in that perhaps people will stop claiming this sort of thing doesn't happen.

"VANCOUVER — A Mountie in Merritt, B.C., has been charged with torture — the first time a Canadian police officer has faced such a charge.

Const. Saxon Peters has already been charged with aggravated assault, unlawful confinement and two counts of obstruction of justice in connection with the alleged beating of an aboriginal man on Aug. 25, 2005.

It’s alleged Peters took 25-year-old Glenn Shuter for a ride on the outskirts of town, where he beat him and left him."

Did they?

The government continues to abide by many of the treaties signed. The point of contention is that the natives insist that part of the agreement wasn't written down, which I think is an absurd position.

Really? Absurd? The Supreme Court doesn't think so, and neither does the Canadian government. The Treaties were essentially standard form contracts, after the first numbered treaty, little was changed. However, despite that, oral promises in many circumstances HAVE been kept by the Canadian government...healthcare funding for one...not to be found in ANY treaty except Treaty 6's "medicine chest" clause.

Evidence of oral promises is always introduced into specific claims. Quite often historical records exist...eyewitness accounts written in diaries, letters to loved ones etc. And if you look at the official position in regards to the nature of aboriginal treaties, you will see that they are quasi-international in nature, essentially unique. The entire context of the deliberations are taken into account, since this is not a case of one culture's norms trumping another's. Aboriginal law and common law meld, and BOTH are taken into account...as they should be.

this is not a just a native issue...
Of course it's not just a native issue...however, native people make up over half of the total homeless in this city. So odds are...the homeless drunk being dumped in another neighbourhood is going to be native.

barbaric for most people yes...call me a racist if you like but Canadian natives maybe the toughest people on the face of the planet, their ability to stoical withstand pain and cold is unbelievable, what we whimper and whine about they accept...

Maybe that's what the Saskatoon cops thought when they left Neil Stonechild to freeze to death? "Oh, he's an Indian, he's tough, he'll make it".

If the people moving indigents from one neighbourhood to another had not been wearing uniforms, this would be called kidnapping. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I think that police cannot break the law unless they are performing their duties, e.g. driving fast to chase a speeding car or shooting an armed assailant. So I would go a step further and charge these police officers with kidnapping.

And I don't even want to get into Neil Stonechild. Or those two Regina boys who did something similar.

That's one thing I don't miss about the prairies.

The thing is, even if this case is successful, nothing is going to happen. The court is unlikely in the extreme to award damages to the people who have been relocated, and the Edmonton police force will simply rewrite their policies and continue to be douchebags regardless.

Oooh, I'd say this is another good news story...a BC cop is up on charges of torture (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e15dbbef-59d5-401d-a23c-f95fb084a72f&k=43167). Good news in that it's being taken seriously, and also good in that perhaps people will stop claiming this sort of thing doesn't happen.

"VANCOUVER — A Mountie in Merritt, B.C., has been charged with torture — the first time a Canadian police officer has faced such a charge.

Const. Saxon Peters has already been charged with aggravated assault, unlawful confinement and two counts of obstruction of justice in connection with the alleged beating of an aboriginal man on Aug. 25, 2005.

It’s alleged Peters took 25-year-old Glenn Shuter for a ride on the outskirts of town, where he beat him and left him."
It's interesting to note that the charge or Torture can only be laid against a public official, or member of the military or law enforcement.

It's interesting to note that the charge or Torture can only be laid against a public official, or member of the military or law enforcement.

That's because it's another crime when a regular Joe does it....and the Charter is not invoked by the actions of regular Joes.

Sorry? Consider it rent. And it's insufficient.
Rent? For what? You gave up the land in those treaties, even assuming it was yours in the first place.

Because, as it happens, you couldn't own land. There was no legal framework permitting land ownership prior to the arrival of Europeans, so you can't claim we stole something that was yours. We just negotiated the acquisition of something you were using. Guess what? You can still use it if you integrate.
The goal is not actually to hinder economic growth, though that is how it is perceived. The focus is on ensuring that these mega-projects don't destroy our territories. Federal environmental standards are pathetic...land claims settlements give us the leverage to enforce much stricter standards. We are looking to the long run, because we'll have to live with what is left over. Very simply it boils down to this: we want a say in what happens in and with our lands.
Your lands, fine. Our lands, not your problem.
Really? Absurd? The Supreme Court doesn't think so, and neither does the Canadian government
And how does that make it less absurd? That's completely irrelevant to the absurdity. Just because the courts decided it was more fair that way doesn't make it so.

When a deal is signed, both sides need to be able to know with certainty what they've agreed to. And should there be a dispute, each side needs to be able to demonstrate with certainty what was agreed to. Oral agreements don't do that. At all. And thus they should not be considered.
However, despite that, oral promises in many circumstances HAVE been kept by the Canadian government...healthcare funding for one...not to be found in ANY treaty except Treaty 6's "medicine chest" clause.
Just because they were kept doesn't mean they legally must be kept. There's no necessary connection there at all.
Evidence of oral promises is always introduced into specific claims. Quite often historical records exist...eyewitness accounts written in diaries, letters to loved ones etc. And if you look at the official position in regards to the nature of aboriginal treaties, you will see that they are quasi-international in nature, essentially unique. The entire context of the deliberations are taken into account, since this is not a case of one culture's norms trumping another's. Aboriginal law and common law meld, and BOTH are taken into account...as they should be.
And this gives natives the unique power to edit the treaties unilaterally, after they were signed, without the knowledge of the Europeans. It's nothing but centuries-old hearsay. That cannot be allowed if the treaties are to accurately represent that to which the parties agreed (and they agreed only to the text of the written treaty).

Ha, you always sign in when I'm at my most tired! I'll get back to you on all of this with more vigour tomorrow:) Please, continue the argument as far as you want me to respond to, if you're in the mood at the moment.

Just one small point right now...there certainly was a legal framework for the ownership of land before the Europeans, with associated property rights...but our property rights look different than European property rights. Bah...nodding off...okay, I'll be back tomorrow :)

Well, forgive me if I wrinkle an eyebrow at this Edmontonian/Albertan phenomenon being pronounced a "Canadian" penchant, Neesika. I have yet to hear of this sort of thing happening in Ontario or Quebec.

Well, forgive me if I wrinkle an eyebrow at this Edmontonian/Albertan phenomenon being pronounced a "Canadian" penchant, Neesika. I have yet to hear of this sort of thing happening in Ontario or Quebec.

Well, such things occur all over the prairies, so it may just be a western thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a rural thing.

Well, such things occur all over the prairies, so it may just be a western thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a rural thing.

That may be so, in which case it's a mild slap-in-the-face to be tarred with this particular too-wide a brush - and while I certainly sympathize with the people the police are victimizing, it doesn't sit well with me to have a blunt-force pronouncement made to the effect that Canadians, on the whole, give even tacit approval to this sort of comportment - when common sense should serve to underscore just how ludicrous a supposition this is.

Well, forgive me if I wrinkle an eyebrow at this Edmontonian/Albertan phenomenon being pronounced a "Canadian" penchant, Neesika. I have yet to hear of this sort of thing happening in Ontario or Quebec.
Just because people in Toronto don't know how to find nature...

Ha, you always sign in when I'm at my most tired! I'll get back to you on all of this with more vigour tomorrow:) Please, continue the argument as far as you want me to respond to, if you're in the mood at the moment.
I'm usually more talkative in the mornings, but I was busy today.

And I had to write all those global warming posts, first.

Just because people in Toronto don't know how to find nature...

Nature, yeah - that's that leafy green stuff sitting next to my instant mashed potatoes and salisbury steak, isn't it?

Well, forgive me if I wrinkle an eyebrow at this Edmontonian/Albertan phenomenon being pronounced a "Canadian" penchant, Neesika. I have yet to hear of this sort of thing happening in Ontario or Quebec.

I was thinking the same thing. I wouldn't doubt something like this could happen in Northern Ontario, although I can't recall any specific incidences. I've heard of many accounts in Edmonton however.

However, as Canadians, I don't think we can be proud of our country over some things, and then claim 'well it wasn't us' when it's a bad thing in another part of the country. Like the issue in the Quebec thread, the acts of a few in another part of the country reflect on all of us.

Just because people in Toronto don't know how to find nature...

Clearly never tried to get out of the City of Toronto at the beginning of a long weekend...

Like the issue in the Quebec thread, the acts of a few in another part of the country reflect on all of us.

Particularly when the word "Canadian" gets bandied about a little too freely, why yes - it does reflect poorly on us all.

Particularly when the word "Canadian" gets bandied about a little too freely, why yes - it does reflect poorly on us all.

Well yeah, it does give the impression that there is some sort of national conspiracy on homeless people. (Some lefties may agree.)

Well yeah, it does give the impression that there is some sort of national conspiracy on homeless people. (Some lefties may agree.)
If they all die, problem solved... :eek:

Well yeah, it does give the impression that there is some sort of national conspiracy on homeless people. (Some lefties may agree.)

This lefty doesn't, particularly. I am somewhat persuaded that there are ongoing conspiracies of one sort or another being consciously (or even unconsciously) directed against the public interest, or even the national interest - but I am otherwise not so easily swayed. OCAP comes to mind here in Ontario - now there's an organization that has done a right proper job of completely alienating those in a position to willingly render assistance to the poor, above and beyond what the municipalities, provinces or the feds have on offer.

If they all die, problem solved... :eek:

No points for asshattery from this quarter, Llewdor.

If they all die, problem solved... :eek:
To quote ze Vozhd "No people, no problem".

:fluffle:

This lefty doesn't, particularly. I am somewhat persuaded that there are ongoing conspiracies of one sort or another being consciously (or even unconsciously) directed against the public interest, or even the national interest - but I am otherwise not so easily swayed. OCAP comes to mind here in Ontario - now there's an organization that has done a right proper job of completely alienating those in a position to willingly render assistance to the poor, above and beyond what the municipalities, provinces or the feds have on offer.

I don't know if I'd place OCAP in the conspiracy column, but I would definitely put them in the counterproductive fringe-group column. It's pretty bad when you can't even get the traditional union sources to fund your social crusade. Their kind of behaviour really only turns the general public away from them.

Well, forgive me if I wrinkle an eyebrow at this Edmontonian/Albertan phenomenon being pronounced a "Canadian" penchant, Neesika. I have yet to hear of this sort of thing happening in Ontario or Quebec.
No, you're right...in Ontario, there is no sneaking around. They just go right out and shoot Indians like Dudley George (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ipperwash/).

That may be so, in which case it's a mild slap-in-the-face to be tarred with this particular too-wide a brush - and while I certainly sympathize with the people the police are victimizing, it doesn't sit well with me to have a blunt-force pronouncement made to the effect that Canadians, on the whole, give even tacit approval to this sort of comportment - when common sense should serve to underscore just how ludicrous a supposition this is.

Let the slap in the face resound then.

From coast to coast, this happens, and is not in any way isolated to Edmonton. Methods of discrimination may vary, but Ontario and Quebec are by no means insulated from this prejudice. Report after report confirms the existence of systemic racism against aboriginal people. The most recent 2005-2006 report (http://www.crr.ca/Load.do?section=4&subSection=6&id=591&type=2) of the federal correctional ombudsman made a minor splash in the news and was forgotten. Ten years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html) pointed out the same issues, and offered 444 recommendations for reconciliation between ALL of Canada and aboriginal peoples. No province was left unscathed in the implications.

Some of the worst flareups and most intensive inquiries have been held over events occurring within Ontario and Quebec. Does this mean that all Canadians are racists? Does this mean you have been tarred with that brush? There is support out there for aboriginal issues, there is recognition of abuses committed against us, and more and more, when these things happen, they are not hidden away or accepted, they are vehemently rejected and dealt with. To me, this indicates a slow, but positive increase in Canadian recognition of systemic flaws.

But to pretend that the people of Ontario and Quebec are simply more enlightened than the hicks of Saskatoon or Edmonton, or Merrit, is a foolish fantasy that is not only self-serving, but blind.

Particularly when the word "Canadian" gets bandied about a little too freely, why yes - it does reflect poorly on us all.

It should. Ipperwash shamed us just as much here in Alberta. You seem to be under the erroneous, and often disabused notion that systemic racism falls within the provincial or territorial jurisdictions only, so certain provinces are exempt. This is a Canada-wide problem, and to baldly come out and suggest otherwise is really an act of revisionism I can not for a single second support or agree with.

And if you want to look beyond aboriginal issues, and simply into issues of poverty and the way that indigents are treated in general? The OPP is NOTORIOUS for the way it deals with its homeless and poor. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty is one of the strongest and most militant anti-poverty groups in the country and it certainly isn't because 'these sorts of abuses are an Edmonton thing'.

Rent? For what? You gave up the land in those treaties, even assuming it was yours in the first place.

Please don't mix up issues here. As per Delgamuukw, there are a wide range of aboriginal rights, with aboriginal title to land one one end, and site-specific usufructary rights (absent actual title) (such as hunting) on the other. All of these rights impose a burden on underlying Crown title. There are jusitifcation tests for certain kinds of infringements, but there is a strong recognition that aboriginal rights need to be recognised, and dealt with before certain development takes place.

As for the Treaties...title to land was surrendered to the Crown, in exchange for Reserve lands, to which aboriginal people hold ultimate, inalienable title. Aboriginal rights were both extinguished, AND created, depending on the treaty. Some treaties are about land, some are simply Peace and Friendship Treaties and did not extinguish land title at all.

So when there are Treaty issues, the main complaint is that even the written terms were not fulfilled...for example, a certain amount of land was alloted to each person in the band, but the count was intentionally faulty, or the count was find and the full amount of Reserve land was simply not turned over. (this is probably the biggest issue with specific claims based on Treaties) As well, it was recognised from the beginning that expropriation was an available tool of the Crown, but that compensation was necessary. In many cases, that compensation has never been paid...thus the present claims to recover those funds.

Then you have BC, and much of the Maritimes, where there were no Treaties extinguishing aboriginal title to land. BC is involved in a very complex series of treaty negotiations, the first 'modern treaty' of Nisga'a being the only completed surrender in that province. So there is a vast difference between the Treaty lands and claims based on Treaties in Alberta, and the comprehensive land claims of BC, the NWT, Yukon and Maritimes.

Simply saying, 'you gave up your land, story over' is an overly simplistic view to take, and certainly not one the Canadian government is taking (even as they drag these claims through the courts for decades).

So I was flippant in labelling it 'rent'. In fact, much of the money flowing towards aboriginal people is based on Treaty negotiations, and policy decisions based on the unique relationship the Federal government has with aboriginal peoples. For example...education is a provincial power except when it comes to aboriginals. So the province doles out tax money for each child in school, funds infrastructure and maintenance, and gives massive grants for various educational developments. The feds are on the hook for these things when it comes to aboriginals. Both systems are funded by tax dollars, and frankly, that wouldn't change even if aboriginal education suddenly became a provincial issue.



Because, as it so happens, you couldn't own land. There was no legal framework permitting land ownership prior to the arrival of Europeans, so you can't claim we stole something that was yours. We just negotiated the acquisition of something you were using. Guess what? You can still use it if you integrate.
Aboriginal land title is collective, not individual, but both in our laws, and in English common law, aboriginal title is recognised as existing pre-Contact, and post. That has been fully laid out in Delgamuukw, and the idea that our rights to land were totally usufructory has been roundly rejected. Unless you can provide me with some sort of source that backs up your claim, I'll consider it quite settled in law that you are in fact, wrong. It's an odd view you take on this, considering the manner in which both law, (yours and ours), and policy utterly contradict you on this.


Your lands, fine. Our lands, not your problem.
I'll lay this out in a bit more detail.

1) On lands under aboriginal title.
- You seem to be agreeing that when it comes to lands we have full title to, we have every right to impede, or accelerate, or regulate economic development. Of course, those rights are not unfettered...as per Delgamuukw, we can't go out and pave over a hunting ground and not have that interfere with our title. But assuming that isn't the case, I think this point is moot.

2) On lands burdened by other aboriginal rights.
- Aboriginal rights are not limited to or bound by aboriginal title. They can exist independent of title. For example, certain areas are burdened by aboriginal huntin rights, or aboriginal gathering rights. They can be burdened by rights to sacred areas, culturally modified trees, burial grounds etc. Now, there ARE ways to get around these things...just because an aboriginal right exists does not mean that no development can happen. However, what it DOES mean is that consultation is MANDATORY where lands are burdened by aboriginal rights. It is required by law, that aboriginal peoples be consulted when there is going to be activity that will infringe on aboriginal rights.

It is not always the case that an injunction will be granted stopping development until those consultations are finished...but it is always a risk. And an even worse risk is that a breach of fiduciary duty could be found even against commercial enterprises who do not, strictly speaking, have such a duty in the same way as the Canadian government. This means that there is great incentive to dialogue with aboriginal communities and take our considerations very much to heart. 'Your land' is not actually your land. Not a single person in Canada actually owns land...what you have is simply an estate, a burden on the underlying Crown title. A duty imposed upon Crown title directly affects you. Where the issue has been settled, there is little we can do. But when you have vast territories (such as in BC and elsewhere) where the issues is not even close to being settled? More and more, businesses are realising that it would be foolish in the extreme to simply forge ahead, ignoring aboriginal concerns, until negotiations have managed to settle these issues somewhat.



And how does that make it less absurd? That's completely irrelevant to the absurdity. Just because the courts decided it was more fair that way doesn't make it so.

Let me put it to you this way. Contract law is much more about what is written on paper. Terms can be read into contracts, intentions can be assumed, circumstances involved in the negotiations can be of prime importance. None of this is considered absurd, and is really no different than the way in which Treaty negotiations are looked at in the law. Treaty negotiators themselves, in some cases, wrote down those oral promises...we're not just talking about taking our oral histories alone as prima facie proof of oral contracts. But more than this is the underlying need, as in contract law, to figure out what the parties intended, and determine whether there has been a breach or not. Quite often, we simply can not prove our case to the satisfaction of the courts. But in other cases, there is abundant historical evidence BEYOND hearsay which is introduced as evidence and our claims are recognised. It is beyond comprehension that we can interpret complex clauses and determine intent when it comes to detailed commercial contracts using many of these same methods...and then turn around and say it is too difficult when it comes to the Treaties. If that seems absurd to you, I have to suggest that you simply do not understand the common-law of this country.

When a deal is signed, both sides need to be able to know with certainty what they've agreed to. And should there be a dispute, each side needs to be able to demonstrate with certainty what was agreed to. Oral agreements don't do that. At all. And thus they should not be considered. Oral contracts are recognised outside of aboriginal law, and there is no reason they should not be within aboriginal law. We are not simply talking about a 'we said, they said' situation here...the action completely hinges on evidence, just like any other area of law. And you are under the mistaken impression that the Canadian government is not exceedingly aware of their obligations under certain oral clauses. There have been a number of cases where these oral clauses were subsequently written down, and even legislated...but simply never carried out. In that case, it's not about certainty, it's about breach.

Just because they were kept doesn't mean they legally must be kept. There's no necessary connection there at all. Ha, that is like saying precedent has no bearing on how the courts make decisions.

A duty can be created simply be being undertaken, even absent the clear creation of that duty beforehand. Not in all cases of course...but since s.35 of the Charter, federal undertakings on behalf of aboriginal peoples are not all simply looked at as 'we feel like doing it now, but may not later'. Many of these issues have become entrenched constitutional rights and are not something the government can turn around and simply ignore. Sorry.

And this gives natives the unique power to edit the treaties unilaterally, after they were signed, without the knowledge of the Europeans. It's nothing but centuries-old hearsay. That cannot be allowed if the treaties are to accurately represent that to which the parties agreed (and they agreed only to the text of the written treaty).
The rules of evidence are very strict...oral accounts can be introduced, but are not prima facie proof all by themselves. Exhaustive historical and anthropological research is often needed, and there is never any guarantee (or even, quite often, hope) that what we claim will come to pass. It is always about compromise. We are not able to kick homesteaders off their lands simply because the government breached its duty and sold those lands illegally to non-aboriginals. But we may be entitled to compensation.

What you essentially seem to be arguing, perhaps even without knowing it, is that aboriginal people should not be afforded the same rights as other Canadians when it comes to the way in which the Crown can infringe upon our rights. You are focusing instead upon the fact that as aboriginal people, we are owed more consideration when it comes to pre-existing title and other aboriginal rights, and the duty that creates to deal with us more exhaustively than Canadians with fee simple estates. It is not the case that we are treated better. Just as the Canadian government can not expropriate your land without compensation, neither can they do this to us. Where agreements have been made, and not lived up to, we seek remedy in the courts...a right every single Canadian has. To deny us this is to state, unequivocally, that we are in fact LESS than other Canadians, in status, and in law.

I think part of the problem for urban Canadians, when it comes to realising the extent of racism against native Canadians, is that there are very few natives in the three large urban centres.

As a child growing up in Toronto, I was completely unaware of natives outside adventure books and some dry history texts. It was only when I moved to the prairie that I saw first hand how badly we as Canadians are fucking up. It is not a pretty sight.

I think part of the problem for urban Canadians, when it comes to realising the extent of racism against native Canadians, is that there are very few natives in the three large urban centres.

As a child growing up in Toronto, I was completely unaware of natives outside adventure books and some dry history texts. It was only when I moved to the prairie that I saw first hand how badly we as Canadians are fucking up. It is not a pretty sight.

Well it makes sense that some of the most sensational abuses have come out of the Prairies. Saskatoon, for example, has the highest population of aboriginals of any urban centre in Canada. Calgary and Edmonton also have very high aboriginal populations proportionally. Of course, these are all fairly small cities compared to Toronto and Vancouver etc...the makeup of the Prairies is still very much white/European and aboriginal...not so mixed ethnically as other areas.

The kinds of racism that will attract attention is going to be different because of the difference in populations...but even in cities where aboriginal peoples are a strict minority, incarceration rates (as one example) STILL show that there is an over representation of aboriginal inmates compared to any other ethnic group in Canada. City by city, that percentage is going to vary...even dramatically...Toronto has a very high black incarceration rate that by far exceeds the percentage of aboriginals.

The kind of racism we face on the Prairies is still very much of a 'frontier' flavour. But you have only to look to Caledonia, and Oka, to see that central Canada is not free of racism either. Dobbs has argued that there is a fair amount of public empathy for aboriginal issues in Ontario and Quebec than may exist elsewhere in Canada, and I certainly do not dispute this. But frankly, this does not mean that Ontario and Quebec are actually 'kinder and gentler' than the Prairie (or Martintime) provinces.

...The kinds of racism that will attract attention is going to be different because of the difference in populations...but even in cities where aboriginal peoples are a strict minority, incarceration rates (as one example) STILL show that there is an over representation of aboriginal inmates compared to any other ethnic group in Canada. ... Dobbs has argued that there is a fair amount of public empathy for aboriginal issues in Ontario and Quebec than may exist elsewhere in Canada, and I certainly do not dispute this. But frankly, this does not mean that Ontario and Quebec are actually 'kinder and gentler' than the Prairie (or Martintime) provinces.


I agree, and I would like to add that the racism against natives is invisible in the larger urban centres. So much so that many people living there would be completely unaware of it. So I would dispute any claim that there is a fair amount of public empathy for aboriginal issues in Ontario and Quebec. I would put public sentiment over in the ignorance and apathy corner.

While in western Canada, since it is impossible to ignore, you have people who either perpetuate the racism or actively try to change it.

*snip* Oh and hey, if you want to break my reply to you up into a bunch of posts, feel free....sorry about the 'essay' format...I was on a roll. :p

enough of this blame the whities for everything...natives have to accept some responsibility for their own behaviour...police have a crappy record for dealing with whites as well but those are never labeled as racist, racism does exist in the police forces of Canada but not every abuse is racist...many natives have a tendency to play the racism card at every opportunity...

incarceration rates are highest among natives is high for good reason they have the highest percentage of criminals, that they go to prison more often certainly has something to do with poverty and not being able to afford a decent lawyer but that doesn't excuse their crimes...alcoholism and accompanying FAS are huge contributors to native problems they have to take responsibility for those, white Canadians don't force that upon them, they do it to themselves...

Oh and hey, if you want to break my reply to you up into a bunch of posts, feel free....sorry about the 'essay' format...I was on a roll. :p
No worries. I'm a bit busy today (it's tax receipt time here, and the regulations governing international charities are insane), but I'll get to it.

enough of this blame the whities for everything...natives have to accept some responsibility for their own behaviour...police have a crappy record for dealing with whites as well but those are never labeled as racist, racism does exist in the police forces of Canada but not every abuse is racist...many natives have a tendency to play the racism card at every opportunity...

incarceration rates are highest among natives is high for good reason they have the highest percentage of criminals, that they go to prison more often certainly has something to do with poverty and not being able to afford a decent lawyer but that doesn't excuse their crimes...alcoholism and accompanying FAS are huge contributors to native problems they have to take responsibility for those, white Canadians don't force that upon them, they do it to themselves...

If you see this as 'blame whitey', it's because that's how you want to see it. RCAP was the most expensive royal commission in Canadian history, and despite the fact that none of its recommendations have been implemented, it is likely the most comprehensive look at the relationship between aboriginal peoples and the rest of Canada out there...and guess what...it wasn't a report put out by aboriginal people.

This is not a one way street, and only the very ignorant claim it to be otherwise. The institutionalised, systemic racism that existed, exists, and unfortunately will continue to exist is recognised for what it is, even by the Canadian government. Individual politicians may deny, just as individual people, white, native or otherwise will have their own opinions on the matter.

The point is reconciliation, not blame. Blame, and taking responsibility is a very, very small part of the overriding concern which is to somehow make peace with one another as individuals, as communities, as peoples. If you deafen yourself to these attempts and focus solely on those who play the race card, from ANY side, then you are doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo.

So either get on board, and help make some changes...or get out of the way, and let the people who give a shit actually get something done. No one is going to force you to care.

No worries. I'm a bit busy today (it's tax receipt time here, and the regulations governing international charities are insane), but I'll get to it.

No problem, I know you're good for it...even if this conversation has to wait a few days:)

If you see this as 'blame whitey', it's because that's how you want to see it. RCAP was the most expensive royal commission in Canadian history, and despite the fact that none of its recommendations have been implemented, it is likely the most comprehensive look at the relationship between aboriginal peoples and the rest of Canada out there...and guess what...it wasn't a report put out by aboriginal people.

This is not a one way street, and only the very ignorant claim it to be otherwise. The institutionalised, systemic racism that existed, exists, and unfortunately will continue to exist is recognised for what it is, even by the Canadian government. Individual politicians may deny, just as individual people, white, native or otherwise will have their own opinions on the matter.



The point is reconciliation, not blame. Blame, and taking responsibility is a very, very small part of the overriding concern which is to somehow make peace with one another as individuals, as communities, as peoples. If you deafen yourself to these attempts and focus solely on those who play the race card, from ANY side, then you are doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo.

So either get on board, and help make some changes...or get out of the way, and let the people who give a shit actually get something done. No one is going to force you to care.

yes racism exists it always will, ignorance can't be legislated away...

..you're inferring all these incidents are targeted on natives purely out of racism, you don't acknowledge that whites have suffered the same, it's just convenient for you to ignore that...

I disagree, taking responsibility for one's own shortcomings is very, very,very important, if you want respect accept some of the responsibility...it's the same with curing alcoholism or drug addiction before you can cure the problem you must admit you have an addiction...

ya natives got treated shitty for decades you'll get no argument from me on that, yes there racist cops(I know of a few) but get over it, prove to the arse holes that your as good or better than they are...native Canadians get more benefits than any immigrant that comes to this country(even whites of non WASP heritage were discriminated against) and they suffered from racism and poverty as well, there is no excuse for not succeeding in this country...racism has become an excuse for failure...

yes racism exists it always will, ignorance can't be legislated away...

..you're inferring all these incidents are targeted on natives purely out of racism, you don't acknowledge that whites have suffered the same, it's just convenient for you to ignore that... You'll have to point out to me how 'whites have suffered the same'. I'll refrain from making assumptions about you based on this comment until you go into further detail.

I disagree, taking responsibility for one's own shortcomings is very, very,very important, if you want respect accept some of the responsibility...it's the same with curing alcoholism or drug addiction before you can cure the problem you must admit you have an addiction... Again, you are making some odd assumptions here about aboriginal people if you think that we are refusing to take responsibility for the issues we face. Part of the problem is that we have been unable to take control over our own health care, social programs, education etc, and have had to rely on the government to provide us with these (often substandard) programs...not because of a lack of will on our part, or some misguided desire to simply point the finger, but because we have been LEGALLY PREVENTED by the Indian Act from taking action.

ya natives got treated shitty for decades you'll get no argument from me on that, yes there racist cops(I know of a few) but get over it, Get over it? As in ignore it? Or get over it as in make sure these cases are treated seriously, and cops who beat and torture natives, or dump them out in the cold to die CONTINUE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their actions? We seek justice. That's how we get over it...we make sure these things stop getting ignored. And I would think that would be a goal of yours as well.


prove to the arse holes that your as good or better than they are...native Canadians get more benefits than any immigrant that comes to this country
Again, I'll refrain from making assumptions until you clarify. What benefits exactly do we receive? I'll wait for your response.


(even whites of non WASP heritage were discriminated against) and they suffered from racism and poverty as well, there is no excuse for not succeeding in this country...racism has become an excuse for failure...Racism has indeed become an excuse for failure, and you have described it well. We as a people 'fail' because that is what racists both want, and see. It is much easier to say, 'these natives, they need to get over this cry of racism, because it's really all their fault that they are doing so poorly, no matter what all the evidence says'. You ignore the successes, you focus on the people 'playing the race card' and you absolve your government of the systemic abuses EVEN THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF can not ignore, and can not deny exists. If that isn't racism, it's willful blindness, and equally disgusting.

[QUOTE]You'll have to point out to me how 'whites have suffered the same'. I'll refrain from making assumptions about you based on this comment until you go into further detail.

what you find it inconceivable that there is ethnic discrimination, that whites were denied jobs based on their ethnic origin? that the police didn't discriminate against them for the same reason? you being too self centered...

Again, you are making some odd assumptions here about aboriginal people if you think that we are refusing to take responsibility for the issues we face. Part of the problem is that we have been unable to take control over our own health care, social programs, education etc, and have had to rely on the government to provide us with these (often substandard) programs...not because of a lack of will on our part, or some misguided desire to simply point the finger, but because we have been LEGALLY PREVENTED by the Indian Act from taking action.

why should you have better treatment than anyone else? did I as an immigrant kid get free dental care? no I did not, did my friend the dentist get sent to reserves to provide free dental care, yes he did(dental bills for my kids $50,000)...did I ever have control over health care, social programs education, no I did not we relied on the government...and honestly even if the Indian Act did didn't prevent natives from doing there own programs they were not capable of doing so, until recently the number of natives with the education capable of doing so did not exist, and corruption among band leaders was also a problem...and searching the web I did find native administered programs...

Get over it? As in ignore it? Or get over it as in make sure these cases are treated seriously, and cops who beat and torture natives, or dump them out in the cold to die CONTINUE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their actions? We seek justice. That's how we get over it...we make sure these things stop getting ignored. And I would think that would be a goal of yours as well.

there are plenty of white's who suffer at the hands of the police, it's not just a native issue, I've my own personal experiences with abusive cops...I don't see anything being ignored, I know many cops in Saskatoon a number of those cops were just as concerned as natives were, justice was being done...

Again, I'll refrain from making assumptions until you clarify. What benefits exactly do we receive? I'll wait for your response.

The University College Entrance Preparation Program (UCEP) provides financial assistance for the equivalent of one year to eligible First Nation and Inuit students to enable them to attain the academic level required for admittance to post-secondary education programs...and there a number of "aboriginal only" funds and bursaries not available to whites...I saved for every my kids education any bursaries they received they earned... there are no bursaries for my kids because they are mixed race, any loans they receive they repay...want to discuss native tax exemptions that I don't have, how about a former work mate who adopted a native kid and so pleased that his son could buy him a new truck tax free...

life is cruel and natives got a shitty deal, they're not alone in the world others have endured the same and surpassed it...suck it up and move on...

I asked for details, not further vague statements about how whites suffer from racism just as much as aboriginal people. Not only shall I ask you again to provide specific examples of how this is so, but I’ll also ask you back those claims up with some form of evidence. Attempting to portray this very reasonable request of you on my part as ‘an inability to conceive of racism against whites based on their ethnic origin’ is disingenuous as best.

First of all, you need a bit of clarification here. We are not immigrants. We do not apply to enter this country, we do not have homelands abroad. We were here before the Europeans arrived, and we were here as fully sovereign peoples. We had our own forms of government, our own system of laws, and our own systems of property. You did not come here with any of these things, you have no claim on these lands that predate Confederation, and there is no onus on the Canadian government to provide you with anything other than what is guaranteed to any other person in your situation. You are not us, and while that may seem unfair, it is manifestly reasonable that you should not be treated with the same consideration as the aboriginal people who have occupied these lands for tens of thousands of years.

Now, since you don’t actually seem to know much about the ‘benefits’ aboriginal peoples receive, let me educate you on the matter.

1) Tax breaks.
This is the number one complaint Canadians have any time ‘special treatment’ comes up. Now consider this. We willingly surrendered vast tracts of land to the Crown for the purpose of settlement and/or development. Tracts of land that even then were of incalculable value. We were not duped, we were not tricked, we were not swindled with shiny glass beads. Our people were not infants who were unaware of the value of the land we were surrendering title to… considering we relied on those lands for our very existence should alone disabuse you of any such foolish notion. We were not stupid…and we certainly weren’t about to give up that land for nothing.

We turned what was ours, over to the Crown, in return for specific guarantees. The lands reserved to us would remain inalienable to any but the Crown, and title to these lands would be collective in nature so there would never be any danger of those lands being sold off piece by piece, leaving our descendants with nothing. The agreement made between our peoples to exempt us from paying taxes on Reserve, is a vastly reasonable one, considering the value of what we gave over... we did not ask for payment, we did not ask for monetary compensation, we asked for specific guarantees which were seen as vastly more important than filling our pockets with riches for a brief period of time.

You may not like those terms. You may think we should have simply been cut a cheque and had it end there…but a deal is a deal, and we were thinking to the future. Had you the chance, I doubt you’d consider the request to be unfair.

In case you are unaware, the only time First Nations people are exempt from direct taxation (you’ll note that Métis people, who are also aboriginal, have no tax exempt status, nor do non-status Indians) is when they live or carry out business on the reserve. Other than GST and provincial sales taxes (again, for business carried out on reserve only), we pay every other hidden tax that you do…fuel taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes for goods and services purchased off reserve, etc etc. Our tax exemption is very narrow, and very specific. And no, you don’t deserve the same. Turn over portions of your homeland to the Canadian government and negotiate your own treaties for these things if you want that kind of consideration.

You should also note that as self-government agreements are made with the government, more and more bands are getting rid of the tax exemption in exchange for direct control over services provided to the band. Many First Nations also have a FN tax equal to the GST which they use as revenue to fund on-reserve services.

2) Health Care/Social Services
Apart from Treaty 6, which has a ‘medicine chest’ clause requiring the federal government to fund healthcare, no Treaty states that there is a responsibility on the part of the government to fund native health care or social services. While it has been argued that oral promises made during negotiations should be the reason such services are provided, that is not the stance of the government who nonetheless DO provide these things to us, but entirely on their own terms. Tax dollars subsidise your healthcare and social services, just as they do ours. Your services are administered by provincial boards…ours are a scattershot system of federal programs ineptly managed at best. Free healthcare may sound like a wonderful thing until you live in a fly-in community where we see a doctor twice a month, or a dentist once. We are more than willing to take over our own services, and more and more this is exactly what is happening. Very slowly the Indian Act is being replaced by First Nations Management agreements, with minimal government funding acting as a supplement on band funding.

And now to that issue of band funding. What many people erroneously think are ‘treaty payments’ are actually revenue sharing schemes funded by our own people, based on resource royalties or other band run commercial enterprises. Treaty payments exist…but have never been indexed for inflation…every year, people in Treaty 6 territory line up for the ceremonial affirmation of the Treaty signing, to receive their $4 annual payment.

So rich reserves cut fatter cheques to our people, or are able to provide funding when the very few of us manage to make it to post-secondary institutions. Some of that funding comes from government as well, just as programs for immigrant relocation, or language classes are partially funded by the government…just as many of the services enjoyed by all citizens of this country are subsidized.

You seem to object to the fact that the manner in which our programs are subsidized are different than the way it is done for everyone else. Well tough luck…we are indeed in a unique situation and relationship with the government, and rightfully so. It doesn’t mean we get more. It doesn’t mean you get less. It just means that our needs are being met in different ways than yours are.

You claim you have no say about the education your children receive. Let me tell you about having no say. Until very recently, our language was not allowed to be taught in schools. As in actually illegal. Many public schools throughout Canada provide immersion education in various non-official languages…aboriginal languages have only just lately been given any such regard. In many First Nation communities, native people are still not allowed to be on the school board, or become a trustee. You, as an ordinary citizen, can run to be a trustee of your school division and directly impact the kind of education being provided in your community. Many of us can not, as a matter of law.

As for your comment to suck it up and move on.

We continue to fight for our rights. We continue to resist the encroachment of commercial interests into our lands, we continue to champion our ways, and fight for the chance to determine our own systems of governance. We have sucked up more than you can possibly imagine, and we move on in full understanding of the gains we have made, and the obstacles yet to be overcome. I am here, studying law, so that I can go back to my people with the tools to push and push some more for justice, and a future. I do not for a second believe that any other group of human beings in our situation, with out history, going through what we have gone through, would do any different.

No one is going to do this for us. Every single gain has been hard won… people have dedicated their entire lives to this, for our people, and you gloss over that sacrifice in order to judge the drunken homeless who didn’t make it.

‘Getting over it’ means preventing the kind of systemic racism that created Residential Schools, that fuelled the 60’s sweep, and that led to the death of Neil Stonechild and Dudley George. You don’t get these things dealt with by laying back and just forgetting. You fucking fight, and you scream, and you yell and you force people to pay attention. And THAT is how attitudes change.

This isn’t about immigrant rights versus aboriginal rights. This is about human rights, period. This country has much to answer for, and the reason we continue to demand that answer is because abuses STILL happen. Yes, we can make it despite that, despite the things we face, and for every one of us who gives in to suicide, or addiction, or crime, there is an aboriginal person who remains faithful to our traditions and keeps on living. But it’s not just about making it against all odds. It’s about dealing with the underlying issues so there can finally be some peace in this country between us.

If you can’t support that, because you feel jilted as an immigrant, then you’re looking for the wrong things my friend. What is a gain for aboriginal people is not something that is a loss for everyone else. When human rights are respected, when agreements are stuck to, and when people have the power to shape their own lives, everyone benefits. Get over your bitterness and look around you. There will always be bigots who can focus only on the small issues, and who will cry racism at every turn. But those aren’t the ones getting things done… and frankly, you’re missing out if that is all you can manage to see.

It took longer than I would have liked, but I made it back.
Please don't mix up issues here. As per Delgamuukw, there are a wide range of aboriginal rights, with aboriginal title to land one one end, and site-specific usufructary rights (absent actual title) (such as hunting) on the other. All of these rights impose a burden on underlying Crown title. There are jusitifcation tests for certain kinds of infringements, but there is a strong recognition that aboriginal rights need to be recognised, and dealt with before certain development takes place.
I think it's clear at this point that I deem Delgamuukw to have been a judicial error. Courts make mistakes.

In 1889, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled in a way that ran directly contrary to the text of the relevant statute. In Riggs v. Palmer, the court rules that Elmer Palmer was not allowed to receive inheritance from his dead grandfather, even though his grandfather had willed him the estate, and the statute governing the will allowed for no exceptions under which the will of the deceased was not executed as the deceased wished. And yet the court ruled that Elmer was not entitled to his inheritance, even though there was not a single piece of law that supported this position.

Courts make mistakes.
As for the Treaties...title to land was surrendered to the Crown, in exchange for Reserve lands, to which aboriginal people hold ultimate, inalienable title. Aboriginal rights were both extinguished, AND created, depending on the treaty. Some treaties are about land, some are simply Peace and Friendship Treaties and did not extinguish land title at all.
Aboriginal land title is collective, not individual, but both in our laws, and in English common law, aboriginal title is recognised as existing pre-Contact, and post. That has been fully laid out in Delgamuukw, and the idea that our rights to land were totally usufructory has been roundly rejected. Unless you can provide me with some sort of source that backs up your claim, I'll consider it quite settled in law that you are in fact, wrong. It's an odd view you take on this, considering the manner in which both law, (yours and ours), and policy utterly contradict you on this.
The one thing I don't get is why you'd even want those rights to be inalienable. Inalienable rights preclude you from exchanging them for something else. Don't you want that sort of control? What Delgamuukw has done here is impose our restrictions on what you can do with your land. If we can do that, how is it yours? Ownership requires free right of use, and you don't have that. In fact, I would argue that by denying you free right of use Delgamuukw has denied you any claim that you truly own the land, even now.

This has been used to deny right of use to ordinary Canadians, as we're not guaranteed the right to own property. If we were, then we could demand compensation if the government restricted the use of land we already owned. But we're not, so we can't. The right to use is a necessary consequent of ownership, and you don't have it. Therefore, you can't, under Canadian law, have guaranteed ownership of the land.
So when there are Treaty issues, the main complaint is that even the written terms were not fulfilled...for example, a certain amount of land was alloted to each person in the band, but the count was intentionally faulty, or the count was find and the full amount of Reserve land was simply not turned over. (this is probably the biggest issue with specific claims based on Treaties) As well, it was recognised from the beginning that expropriation was an available tool of the Crown, but that compensation was necessary. In many cases, that compensation has never been paid...thus the present claims to recover those funds.
And if the crown expressly violated treaties, then you have every right to request compensation. The treaties, as I've said before, need to be upheld, as written, without exception.
Then you have BC, and much of the Maritimes, where there were no Treaties extinguishing aboriginal title to land. BC is involved in a very complex series of treaty negotiations, the first 'modern treaty' of Nisga'a being the only completed surrender in that province. So there is a vast difference between the Treaty lands and claims based on Treaties in Alberta, and the comprehensive land claims of BC, the NWT, Yukon and Maritimes.
Right. Those areas with no treaties are vastly more complicated (though I fail to see how the natives have any leverage in negotiations - but that's a different discussion), but we were specifically discussing treaties. So I'll stick to that.
Simply saying, 'you gave up your land, story over' is an overly simplistic view to take, and certainly not one the Canadian government is taking (even as they drag these claims through the courts for decades).
And again, I clearly disagree with the Canadian govenrment on this. If the treaty says you surrendered land, then you did. End of story.
So I was flippant in labelling it 'rent'. In fact, much of the money flowing towards aboriginal people is based on Treaty negotiations, and policy decisions based on the unique relationship the Federal government has with aboriginal peoples. For example...education is a provincial power except when it comes to aboriginals. So the province doles out tax money for each child in school, funds infrastructure and maintenance, and gives massive grants for various educational developments. The feds are on the hook for these things when it comes to aboriginals. Both systems are funded by tax dollars, and frankly, that wouldn't change even if aboriginal education suddenly became a provincial issue.
A duty can be created simply be being undertaken, even absent the clear creation of that duty beforehand. Not in all cases of course...but since s.35 of the Charter, federal undertakings on behalf of aboriginal peoples are not all simply looked at as 'we feel like doing it now, but may not later'. Many of these issues have become entrenched constitutional rights and are not something the government can turn around and simply ignore. Sorry.
There is such a thing as ex gratia behaviour. It is possible to undertake an action without admitting the requirement that one undertake that action. If I give you an apple every day, that does not (and should not) create a legal obligation that I continue to give you an apple every day.

Incidentally, the Charter is one reason I'm a separatist. I want to get out from under its insane obligations.
1) On lands under aboriginal title.
- You seem to be agreeing that when it comes to lands we have full title to, we have every right to impede, or accelerate, or regulate economic development. Of course, those rights are not unfettered...as per Delgamuukw, we can't go out and pave over a hunting ground and not have that interfere with our title. But assuming that isn't the case, I think this point is moot.
To reiterate, I think that Delgamuukw restriction significantly limits your ownership.
2) On lands burdened by other aboriginal rights.
- Aboriginal rights are not limited to or bound by aboriginal title. They can exist independent of title. For example, certain areas are burdened by aboriginal huntin rights, or aboriginal gathering rights. They can be burdened by rights to sacred areas, culturally modified trees, burial grounds etc. Now, there ARE ways to get around these things...just because an aboriginal right exists does not mean that no development can happen. However, what it DOES mean is that consultation is MANDATORY where lands are burdened by aboriginal rights. It is required by law, that aboriginal peoples be consulted when there is going to be activity that will infringe on aboriginal rights.
Assuming those rights were spelled out in the treaty, sure. But these rights aren't inalienable. That makes vastly more sense. We could pay you to surrender those rights (assuming you were amenable).
Let me put it to you this way. Contract law is much more about what is written on paper. Terms can be read into contracts, intentions can be assumed, circumstances involved in the negotiations can be of prime importance.
Yes, this happens. It's bad. It means that if I sign a clear agreement with you, you might be able to have extra conditions read into the argeement when it comes time to litigate. It robs me of any certainty the contract was supposed to have granted.

If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot possibly mean what you say. Contracts need to be interpreted strictly literally, else they become useless tools.
Treaty negotiators themselves, in some cases, wrote down those oral promises.
But if they're not agreed to, in writing, by both sides, they should carry no weight.
But more than this is the underlying need, as in contract law, to figure out what the parties intended, and determine whether there has been a breach or not.
Why is that needed? If it was so important, they should have written it down. And if my behaviour does not violate the written treaty, then there has been no breach.
Quite often, we simply can not prove our case to the satisfaction of the courts.
Ever is too often. That you can ever get the courts to accept oral agreements is a gross perversion of the legal system.
It is beyond comprehension that we can interpret complex clauses and determine intent when it comes to detailed commercial contracts using many of these same methods...and then turn around and say it is too difficult when it comes to the Treaties.
It should not be allowed in either case.
If that seems absurd to you, I have to suggest that you simply do not understand the common-law of this country.
I do not understand how it can be law at all, given that it's not knowable with certainty.
Oral contracts are recognised outside of aboriginal law, and there is no reason they should not be within aboriginal law.
They should not be for the same reasons they should not be in any area of law. Their legally relevant contents are not knowable in advance of the judicial ruling.
And you are under the mistaken impression that the Canadian government is not exceedingly aware of their obligations under certain oral clauses.
That the government believes these obligations to exist does not mean that they do.
We are not simply talking about a 'we said, they said' situation here...the action completely hinges on evidence, just like any other area of law.

There have been a number of cases where these oral clauses were subsequently written down, and even legislated...but simply never carried out. In that case, it's not about certainty, it's about breach.
You can't breach a contractual clause that doesn't exist in the contract.

Llewdor! You will be my undoing! Why must you pick NOW of all times to get back to this? Must....resist....must...study....

I'll get back to you next week on this. NS is so damn hard to resist...

(by the way...you have a very sweet view of contractual law, but the fact is, the law is vastly different than what you want it to be. That doesn't make it bad, it just means it's more complex than you'd have it.)

‘Getting over it’ means preventing the kind of systemic racism that created Residential Schools, that fuelled the 60’s sweep, and that led to the death of Neil Stonechild and Dudley George. You don’t get these things dealt with by laying back and just forgetting. You fucking fight, and you scream, and you

yell and you force people to pay attention. And THAT is how attitudes change.



this whole thread is a "boo hoo look how bad whitie is treating us" even the title of the thread is self serving.." The Canadian penchant for 'dumping' the indigenous and indigent"...you're just looking to blame whitie for everything, the title should have been "dumping the indigent"... it wasn't a racist issue at all as there were whites involved but then it wouldn't be an issue taking a bunch of panhandling drunks for a ride on summer day....

residential schools were wanted by the natives...that they were abusive wasn't racist, hundreds if not thousands of white kids have also been abused in religious schools and orphanages...hell I'm white and I got slapped, kicked, strapped and best of all my head repeatedly smacked into a wall and that was the public school system....

Stonechild and George, why is the racism card not played when a white person is killed by the police? why is that ignored is it because it doesn't fit the racist cop theory...the police can be arse holes so that's never going to change...if natives are in jail more often than white's it's likely for a good reason, they're guilty

natives have had some valid complaints unsettled treaties and such but they have every opportunity to get out of their lifestyle...

this whole thread is a "boo hoo look how bad whitie is treating us" even the title of the thread is self serving.." The Canadian penchant for 'dumping' the indigenous and indigent"...you're just looking to blame whitie for everything, the title should have been "dumping the indigent"... it wasn't a racist issue at all as there were whites involved but then it wouldn't be an issue taking a bunch of panhandling drunks for a ride on summer day.... It has been estimated that 3/4 of the 'dumped' were of aboriginal ancestry, and they were dumped in the middle of winter as well. Regardless, it's called false arrest, unlawful confinement, and a Charter breach. But you know better than the legislature and the courts, doncha?

residential schools were wanted by the natives...tYes, and the blacks wanted slavery.

Children were forcibly taken from their families and put in these schools...some families fled to the bush to avoid this government sanctioned kidnapping. Some of these children weren't seen by their families again for 10 years, because they were taken from communities to distant to allow for visits. Sheesh, why do I bother...you clearly know it all, intuiting it despite your complete ignorance on the subject.


hat they were abusive wasn't racist, hundreds if not thousands of white kids have also been abused in religious schools and orphanages...hell I'm white and I got slapped, kicked, strapped and best of all my head repeatedly smacked into a wall and that was the public school system....

Stonechild and George, why is the racism card not played when a white person is killed by the police? why is that ignored is it because it doesn't fit the racist cop theory...the police can be arse holes so that's never going to change...if natives are in jail more often than white's it's likely for a good reason, they're guilty

natives have had some valid complaints unsettled treaties and such but they have every opportunity to get out of their lifestyle...

You are so smart. Amazing. You have it all figured out! Wow! How absolutely fantastic to be you! You, with your unbridled intelligence, can stride in here, and with one fell swoop do away with all the evidence and say, 'look folks, there is no racism here!'.

You have proven wrong the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html), the most expensive Royal Commission in Canadian history, over 5000 pages long, which has this to say about Residential Schooling:

"The basic premise of resocialization, of the great transformation from 'savage' to 'civilized', was violent. "To kill the Indian in the child", the department aimed at severing the artery of culture that ran between generations and was the profound connection between parent and child sustaining family and community. In the end, at the point of final assimilation, "all the Indian there is in the race should be dead.""

How foolish they would feel to know that they got it all wrong after several years of research and consultation! Too bad they didn't just consult with YOU!

When it came to the soaring suicide rate among aboriginal peoples...five times higher in some aboriginal communities than the rest of Canada...had they only known that Indians themselves were wholly to blame! The commissioners could have put aside the following discoveries altogether:

"Situational factors were considered to be more relevant. The disruptions of family life experienced as a result of enforced attendance at boarding schools, adoption, and fly-out hospitalizations, often for long-term illnesses like tuberculosis, were seen as contributing to suicide.

Culture stress is a term used to refer to the loss of confidence in the ways of understanding life and living that have been taught within a particular culture. It comes about when the complex of relationships, knowledge, languages, social institutions, beliefs, values, and ethical rules that bind a people and give them a collective sense of who they are and where they belong is subjected to change. For aboriginal people, such things as loss of land and control over living conditions, suppression of belief systems and spirituality, weakening of social and political institutions, and racial discrimination have seriously damaged their confidence and thus predisposed them to suicide, self-injury and other self-destructive behaviours."

Fools! How could they not have seen that racism had nothing to do with it? That forced assimilation was totally unrelated to race?

You have deftly swept aside the report of RCAP, recently reaffirmed (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=110d0b8e-1932-49e5-8c60-84438d89a236&k=70661) by the federal ombudsman for prisons that there is systemic, racial discrimination against aboriginal peoples in the correctional system. Silly rabbit...you could have told them they were wrong!

The Neil Stonechild inquiry (http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca/) uncovered systemic racism within the Saskatoon police force, from refusing to hire qualified aboriginal candidates and a failure to reach out to the aboriginal community...THE LARGEST aboriginal community per capita in any Canadian city. But you could have set them straight! Clearly they got it wrong!

The Dudley George inquiry (Ipperwash (http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/)), which began in 2003, is expected to release it's final report THIS YEAR. Silly commissioners! Wasting so much time on looking into this when you could have told them that 'hey, white people get killed by cops too...like...um...that...that um...guy I heard about...yeah, and that wasn't racism, so neither is this!'

There have been public inquiries and reports dealing with and affirming the existence of systemic racism against aboriginal peoples IN EVERY TERRITORY AND PROVINCE except PEI. Read that again. But somehow, some way...you are smarter than your own government, than your own judiciary, than your own instruments of discovery, and you can, with a wave of your hand...make it all go away.

You know what, scratch that. Read the fucking RCAP report. Because this isn't about 'boohoo poor me', it's about solutions, laid out in crisp, written form (you should love that), in 444 detailed suggestions as to how to deal with what only YOU and other ilk of your uniformed stature seem to think is an imaginary problem.

Forgive me if I take the incredible weight of inquiry after inquiry after commission after report over your, ignorant, and truly pathetic opinion.


Llewdor...I'll get back to you next week...your respone actually deserves attention. This steaming pile of shit called a post really didn't.

this whole thread is a "boo hoo look how bad whitie is treating us" even the title of the thread is self serving.." The Canadian penchant for 'dumping' the indigenous and indigent"...you're just looking to blame whitie for everything, the title should have been "dumping the indigent"... it wasn't a racist issue at all as there were whites involved but then it wouldn't be an issue taking a bunch of panhandling drunks for a ride on summer day....

residential schools were wanted by the natives...that they were abusive wasn't racist, hundreds if not thousands of white kids have also been abused in religious schools and orphanages...hell I'm white and I got slapped, kicked, strapped and best of all my head repeatedly smacked into a wall and that was the public school system....

Stonechild and George, why is the racism card not played when a white person is killed by the police? why is that ignored is it because it doesn't fit the racist cop theory...the police can be arse holes so that's never going to change...if natives are in jail more often than white's it's likely for a good reason, they're guilty

natives have had some valid complaints unsettled treaties and such but they have every opportunity to get out of their lifestyle...

If those darn natives would just put on a happy face and whistle, everything would be dandy.

And those poor people should just get some money. Duh.

(by the way...you have a very sweet view of contractual law, but the fact is, the law is vastly different than what you want it to be. That doesn't make it bad, it just means it's more complex than you'd have it.)
Not so much more compex as less logical. At present, contract interpretation requires considerable inference, and inference is without any logical foundation. It can't be proven, so it shouldn't be used. And it only works as long as everyone involved has the same preconceptions about the outcome, which a contract dispute explicitly doesn't.

*snipped long, yet wondeful retort*

Okay, I loved that. That post may not have deserved a response, but I'm glad you did. :D

Not so much more compex as less logical. At present, contract interpretation requires considerable inference, and inference is without any logical foundation. It can't be proven, so it shouldn't be used. And it only works as long as everyone involved has the same preconceptions about the outcome, which a contract dispute explicitly doesn't.

The parties to the contract don't get to interpret the contract in a dispute...the courts do. And there are considerable restraints on interpretation, both in legislation and common law. The inferences are absolutely based on a logical foundation...but quickly explaining the various methodologies to the layman would be impossible. If you are engaged in a certain kind of business, you'll be familiar with that aspect of contract law, so it's not as though the complexities are prohibitive.

In any case...I'm doing it again...can't get back to this until after...but my brain is hurting right now so I thought I'd take a peek anyway:)

Okay, I loved that. That post may not have deserved a response, but I'm glad you did. :D

*bows*

I only responded because someone made a similar statement in class the other day. So I just calmly listed the various official reports that contradicted her, and asked her to provide her research into the subject :D

Neesika-are you considering using your talents and your interest in this subject to help these folks?
I'm thinking that you put your valid thoughts into words pretty well,butI hate to say it,but-its kinda wasted in here.
You're arguing and proving points to people that will make no difference to your cause.

Have you or are you considering writing letters to editors,legislators,etc-people that can bring more attention and possible solutions?

I just feel like itsa lost cause in here. The ones that agree with you-and the ones that mock your positions really have little bearing on the situation.

Read this without assuming my normal mocking or sarcastic tone. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not ridiculing you. You've gotten my attention on something I knew very little about.
Its just my opinion that you could express your well laid out arguements to people that could start making a difference,rather than consider this and then consider their favorite beers thread or how to bash the US today.

Do I make any sense?

Neesika-are you considering using your talents and your interest in this subject to help these folks?
I'm thinking that you put your valid thoughts into words pretty well,butI hate to say it,but-its kinda wasted in here.
You're arguing and proving points to people that will make no difference to your cause. No worries Carn, and I know it (good to see you by the way, I've kind of missed you lately). I'm here for practice. These are complicated topics and I need to be able to explain them as simply as possible. I don't think I'm quite there yet, but I've gotten better from discussing it here, or with people in RL. And I think I have changed some people's minds (for worse or better, well, who knows), and I've had to consider some viewpoints that I, coming from an aboriginal community, am sometimes unwilling to consider (thanks Dobbs, even though we don't always agree).

Have you or are you considering writing letters to editors,legislators,etc-people that can bring more attention and possible solutions?

I just feel like itsa lost cause in here. The ones that agree with you-and the ones that mock your positions really have little bearing on the situation.

Read this without assuming my normal mocking or sarcastic tone. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not ridiculing you. You've gotten my attention on something I knew very little about.
Its just my opinion that you could express your well laid out arguements to people that could start making a difference,rather than consider this and then consider their favorite beers thread or how to bash the US today.

Do I make any sense? Yup, total sense, and I appreciate it. But you've just admitted that you've been able to consider a topic you knew little about. You may never have the opportunity to do anything about it, or have it affect you personally, so maybe it's wasted knowledge...but I don't think any knowledge is really wasted.

As for real action, oh honey, I'm all about real action. I went into Education expressly to help improve services to aboriginal students. When the roadblocks started pissing me off, I decided to study Law to help remove some of them. I'm dedicating these three years, and my future practice, to making real changes. But I have to have my shit sorted out, and I have to understand things from more than our perspective, and above all...I have to be able to articulate our perspective to people with a very different worldview. That takes a lot of time to develop, and NS has been pretty useful in that regard.

In the meantime, aside from bashing heads, I work now with my people, I serve my elders when called to, I maintain my community ties...I try to pass my culture on to my kids. I look for solutions. Having people actually think about these issues instead of reacting with stereotypes or assumptions based on ignorance plays some part in that..but don't fear that it's all I'm doing :D

In any case...I'm doing it again...can't get back to this until after...but my brain is hurting right now so I thought I'd take a peek anyway:)
That's okay. Take your time.

But...
The parties to the contract don't get to interpret the contract in a dispute...the courts do.
That's the problem. The parties' perceptions of the contract's contents are irrelevant; they have no idea how their contract will be interpreted. As such, no one can be sure what the contract they just signed will actually mean in the world. That's not good.
The inferences are absolutely based on a logical foundation.
Inferences can't be based on a logical foundation. Inferences are necessarily illogical. Deductions are logical. Inferences cannot be.

We had a big thread about that a few months ago - maybe I can dig it up...

(thanks Dobbs, even though we don't always agree)

Oh, pshaw. What a dreadful life it would be were we to agree on all matters, eh wot? All I ask is that we keep our lines of communication open, and to try, whenever possible, to avoid doctrinaire thinking. Other than that, I'll be damned if I'll ever be a willing party to a mutual head-nodding encounter.

Vive la difference!

We had a big thread about that a few months ago - maybe I can dig it up...

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask if you could, erm... not indulge in forum necromancy nearly so much, Llew.

That's okay. Take your time.

But...

That's the problem. The parties' perceptions of the contract's contents are irrelevant; they have no idea how their contract will be interpreted. As such, no one can be sure what the contract they just signed will actually mean in the world. That's not good. Not true, not in practice or theory...the courts balance the need for predictability with the need for flexibility to ensure fairness. It works out pretty well most of the time, and the perceptions of the initial parties to the contract are not irrelevant.

Inferences can't be based on a logical foundation. Inferences are necessarily illogical. Deductions are logical. Inferences cannot be.

We had a big thread about that a few months ago - maybe I can dig it up...
Don't bother...it really isn't going to relate to this thread anyway. No offense...but you don't really know what you're talking about here in terms of how contract law works, and I don't have the time or energy to give you a course when I've got this crap stuffed to brimming in my head as it is:D Suffice it to say, business has not come to a grinding halt, the outcomes of contract disputes ARE fairly predictable, and contracts themselves are governed by rules that you would be intimately familiar with if you needed to be as part of how you made your living...either that or you'd be paying a lawyer to make sure your contract reflects your needs. And overall, the system is a resounding success.

My only point in bringing this into the conversation was to point out to you that not even in English common law is it always the case that 'only what is written' is to be counted. I understand why you would perhaps wish that to be so...but I honestly believe you'd change your mind if you WERE more familiar with contract law.

Let's put this subtopic to rest though...I'm not that interested in debating what contract law COULD be, as opposed to what it is.

I can't study for another second today, I just can't. So I'll do something relaxing...like argue about aboriginal rights :D

It took longer than I would have liked, but I made it back.

I think it's clear at this point that I deem Delgamuukw to have been a judicial error. Courts make mistakes.

Delgamuukw is an extension of developing, but fairly robust case law. It does not make any logical leaps, or break any radical new ground. In fact, I think the ruling itself is very conservative, and we can agree on this...it's not necessarily what I WOULD want, best case scenario in mind.

Now yes, the Supreme Court has reversed itself, and yes, courts can get it wrong. But it is unlikely IN THE EXTREME that any of Lamer's decisions will be reversed. They give the government enough latitude to infringe upon aboriginal rights, and essentially provide a series of tests (based on existing tests) to determine when aboriginal rights can be said to exist (aboriginal title being only one right on a continuum). What Delgamuukw did, more than anything, was to pull the case law together in a comprehensive form...Lamer wasn't reinventing the law, he was synthesising it.

In 1889, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled in a way that ran directly contrary to the text of the relevant statute. In Riggs v. Palmer, the court rules that Elmer Palmer was not allowed to receive inheritance from his dead grandfather, even though his grandfather had willed him the estate, and the statute governing the will allowed for no exceptions under which the will of the deceased was not executed as the deceased wished. And yet the court ruled that Elmer was not entitled to his inheritance, even though there was not a single piece of law that supported this position.

Courts make mistakes. Actually, the court got it exactly right. There may have been no relevant statute dealing with benefiting from the commission of a crime (you forgot to mention that Elmer murdered his grandfather because he was worried the old man might change his will and cut him out), but such prohibitions exist in equity. You kill me for the money in my pocket. Should you be allowed to profit from your crime, and keep that money as you do your sentence? No.

Yes, courts make mistakes, but you picked a piss poor case to prove it (no offense). Again, and with all due respect...you really don't know what you're talking about. Wills, as an example, are not absolute. A private citizen has enormous latitude to dispose of his or her estate as desired, but there ARE restrictions, in statute, and in common law. For example, no matter how much you want to, you don't get to write a will that says, "To my son, in the hopes that he stops dressing in women's clothing." with no explicit direction as to what would happen (would the estate revert? Be gifted over?) if your precatory term is not respected. So your son can prance around in women's clothing forever, and still retain your estate after your death. I'm not going to go into the tonne of examples I have been busting my head over all day...but suffice it to say, as in contract law, wills is not an area you are going to successfully argue is straight forward and 'all about what is written'. Statute AND common law govern wills, and again...the courts in the example you gave made exactly the correct choice.


The one thing I don't get is why you'd even want those rights to be inalienable. Inalienable rights preclude you from exchanging them for something else. No, actually inalienable in the context of aboriginal title means something slightly different than it would in other legal contexts. We can surrender the land ONLY to the Crown, that is a common law principle that predates the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763), but is best described therein. Because our land is communal, it prevents a single member, or even a few members of our nation to sell off what is essentially land belonging to all of us, and our descendants. That doesn't mean we CAN'T sell. We just have to do it via the Crown, who has a fiduciary obligation to ensure that the process is carried out in our best interests.

Now, various bands issue Certificates of Possession, which allow members to secure financing for various ventures...on this issue, I'm not particularly clear, so I can't explain how it works, except that all the major banks accept these certificates in a fashion roughly similar to how they will accept your title to land. The reserve land, however, is never available for seizure.

So yes, I want our land to remain inalienable...because it means that our lands will continue to remain in our possession for all the future generations...unless we as a community decide otherwise.


Don't you want that sort of control? What Delgamuukw has done here is impose our restrictions on what you can do with your land.
Wrong. Delgamuukw has simply clarified how our land can be used. The restrictions were already there. We could not, for example, sell our land to a private investor, we could not surrender it to the Provincial Crown...etc etc. As well, the land-use rule in Delgamuukw states that use of the land can not be inconsistent with the tie we have to it...the example given is of hunting grounds being turned into a parking lot. Frankly, I'm supportive of that legal stance...because it ensures that corrupt band councils can not sell us out. If we REALLY want a parking lot? We surrender the land, and have it developed.

If we can do that, how is it yours?
I will agree with one thing, Llewdor...I don't think we should be negotiating within the Canadian system at all. But pragmatically, we don't have a choice. So we work within this odd creature, this sui generis monster of aboriginal law. However, you'll note that while the Crown has taken it upon itself to impose restrictions on us in terms of our land ownership, Delgamuukw nonetheless affirms that title stems from prior occupation...not from anything the Crown did to 'give the land' to us.


Ownership requires free right of use, and you don't have that.Ugh property law again. Okay, quick lesson...rights relating to property vary. The largest estate existing in Canada is the fee simple, imparting the most rights, and there are few limitations on what you can do with that land. But there are much more restricted estates, such as a life estate, or an estate in trust that very much limit 'free right of use'. Aboriginal title is simply another category of ownership, one that has been dubbed 'sui generis' or unique. And that's okay. It does not invalidate ownership in any way.


In fact, I would argue that by denying you free right of use Delgamuukw has denied you any claim that you truly own the land, even now. You can argue it, but I doubt you could really back it up. I agree, the odd assertion that somehow (but no one really knows how) the Crown obtained underlying sovereign title to our lands is a bizarre fiction...but it's not so clumsy that it can't work. And we can live with the fiction, as long as our ability to retain our lands is protected to the utmost level possible. Delgamuukw doesn't quite do that...but it suggests ways to make it so. Picard out.

This has been used to deny right of use to ordinary Canadians, as we're not guaranteed the right to own property. If we were, then we could demand compensation if the government restricted the use of land we already owned. But we're not, so we can't.
Actually, depending on the situation, you may very well be owed compensation, due to various common law doctrines and statutes I shan't go into. The fact of the matter is...were Canada to accept that aboriginal people have allodial title...that is ABSOLUTE REAL title to our lands...then you would be dealing with a bizarre situation where our lands would be independent, international entities...within Canada. I honestly don't see how that would work...not from any angle...though there are many of my people who want this. It just isn't going to happen however...aboriginal title as it stands is not QUITE as far as it should go, perhaps...but it is more closely tailored to our relationship with the land, and adequate.

The right to use is a necessary consequent of ownership, and you don't have it. Therefore, you can't, under Canadian law, have guaranteed ownership of the land. Please don't tell me what Canadian law is Llewdor, especially when you're very wrong on the subject. We have many rights to use our lands as we see fit, with some few restrictions. Just like any other form of land ownership...and yet, unique to the category that is aboriginal title. So yes, we have guaranteed ownership of the land. Don't worry.

And if the crown expressly violated treaties, then you have every right to request compensation. The treaties, as I've said before, need to be upheld, as written, without exception. Nope, they don't. I'm not going to argue with you any more on this, because the law supports me in so many ways on this. Now, you can quibble, and argue it should not be so, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Quite honestly, when I have more time, we can focus entirely on this topic (Treaty interpretation) and fill up pages and pages...but I'm not going to attempt to tackle this, or go through it with you in a broader context right now.

Right. Those areas with no treaties are vastly more complicated (though I fail to see how the natives have any leverage in negotiations - but that's a different discussion), but we were specifically discussing treaties. So I'll stick to that. Since I'm avoiding the topic of treaty interpretation at the moment, I'll address areas where there were no treaties. The reason we have more leverage in those negotiations is because the land was never surrendered, and neither were our rights. So you literally have the situation where except for small patches where modern Treaties have been recently signed...ALL of British Colombia, in theory, belongs to BC natives. Clearly that is not going to mean that until things are settled, all non-natives must leave. But the possibility of forced movement is a real one, and the government simply needs to deal with the situation as quickly as possible in order to resolve the situation.

And again, I clearly disagree with the Canadian govenrment on this. If the treaty says you surrendered land, then you did. End of story. Ah, sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Aboriginal title (land ownership) is just one aboriginal right. So no, we can't say, 'hey we gave up this land but we didn't mean to, give it back'. But not all of our aboriginal rights were extinguished. The right to hunt, for example, was not created by Treaty, it is inherent, and was not extinguished (the the National Resource Transfer Agreements pre-Charter did extinguish the right to hunt commercially, with few exceptions). Similarly, other aboriginal rights still exist, despite the Treaties, and when those rights are infringed, we go to court. So some of our battles are based on Treaty terms, and some are based on inherent aboriginal rights that, unless expressly extinguished, continue to be ours. That's why I said it's simplistic to just say, 'land surrender, story over'.


There is such a thing as ex gratia behaviour. It is possible to undertake an action without admitting the requirement that one undertake that action. If I give you an apple every day, that does not (and should not) create a legal obligation that I continue to give you an apple every day. But it MAY. That's my only point.

Incidentally, the Charter is one reason I'm a separatist. I want to get out from under its insane obligations. Yes...human rights are SUCH a drag :D.

I'll never get you Western separatists...but that's another topic.

To reiterate, I think that Delgamuukw restriction significantly limits your ownership. And I say it does nothing of the sort, nor does it break any new ground in terms of aboriginal ownership. It just makes it clearer.

Assuming those rights were spelled out in the treaty, sure. But these rights aren't inalienable. That makes vastly more sense. We could pay you to surrender those rights (assuming you were amenable).Ah, another area I think that is confusing the issue. Treaties may create rights or extinguish them...but rights exist independent of the Treaties. There is no need to have our rights spelled out in any Treaty in order to 'create them'. Our rights predate the reception of English common law in this country. These rights are not all proprietarial in nature, and Delgamuukw does a good job of outlining the various tests that allow for infringment of those rights. I'm a little choked at how easily it can be to infringe on our rights, but at least we are now guaranteed consultation.

Yes, this happens. It's bad. It means that if I sign a clear agreement with you, you might be able to have extra conditions read into the argeement when it comes time to litigate. It robs me of any certainty the contract was supposed to have granted. Won't cover this old ground other than to say...contract law is what it is, and somehow, the economy doesn't grind to a halt, and people entering into contracts still have a very high degree of certainty. The courts feel very strongly about ensuring that.

If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot possibly mean what you say. Contracts need to be interpreted strictly literally, else they become useless tools. Nope, and nope.

But if they're not agreed to, in writing, by both sides, they should carry no weight.

Why is that needed? If it was so important, they should have written it down. And if my behaviour does not violate the written treaty, then there has been no breach. The easiest breach to prove is the breach of written terms, and most Treaty challenges are based on those terms. But again, intentions of the parties DO matter. It's a complex field, Treaty interpretation, no doubt...and lots of fun. But your view of it is simplistic...and I can't, in the time I have, and in the space of this thread, teach you enough about it for it to make sense.

Ever is too often. That you can ever get the courts to accept oral agreements is a gross perversion of the legal system. You should note that there have been numerous multi-million dollar contracts made entirely orally. And you'd better believe the courts accept them.

Okay, the rest of your post quibbles with the law, without actually understanding it. Again, I say this with respect...you simply don't have the background to make this particular argument. So if we're going to continue the discussion on a purely theoretical basis as opposed to how the law actually works, that needs to be made clear, okay?

Anyway, thanks for the response! I'm glad to find that you aren't a total douchebag like some other posters I won't mention :P

*snip*

Wow. Keep up the good work, Neesika.

It's a pleasure learning about all this from you.

Courts make mistakes.

In 1889, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled in a way that ran directly contrary to the text of the relevant statute. In Riggs v. Palmer, the court rules that Elmer Palmer was not allowed to receive inheritance from his dead grandfather, even though his grandfather had willed him the estate, and the statute governing the will allowed for no exceptions under which the will of the deceased was not executed as the deceased wished. And yet the court ruled that Elmer was not entitled to his inheritance, even though there was not a single piece of law that supported this position.

Courts make mistakes.

you chose palmer as an example of a court making a mistake?! hilarious

Thanks Neesika. I always wondered about the asset mechanism for natives to aquire money for private enterprise.

I THINK I learned numerous other things too. We'll see how they soak in!

I laughed about your western separatists comment to Llewdor!

Tell me, if you please, what mechanisms are in place for a possible Albertan break from confederation? Of course, existing contractual agreements are valid and legal, and would be honored, but anything past a succession date might take a bend. Is it considered enough of an issue that its discussed?

Well, such things occur all over the prairies, so it may just be a western thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a rural thing.I wouldn't call Vancouver rural (we beat our hobos).

Holy shit! And I thought Canada was sort of a socialist heaven. My dreams are dashed.

Tell me, if you please, what mechanisms are in place for a possible Albertan break from confederation? Of course, existing contractual agreements are valid and legal, and would be honored, but anything past a succession date might take a bend. Is it considered enough of an issue that its discussed?

The Quebec Separation Reference (http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs2-217/1998rcs2-217.html) laid the groundwork for how a succession could be achieved, and the process necessary to do so. For Llewdor's benefit, I'd like to point out a particularly salient quote of the Supreme Court on this matter:

"The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

Once again, this country's laws, and systems of governance, are about much more than what is written on paper. :D

Anyway, if Alberta really wanted to leave the Confederation, it has to keep the following in mind:

1) No province or territory can unilaterally succeed from the Confederation. But "although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community..."

2) Succession requires an amendment to the Constitution, which triggers the amending formula contained within the Canada Act 1982.

3) A province should first hold a referendum posing the question of succession. A majority vote in favour would signal the democratic will to continue the process.

4) A clear indication of the desire for succession triggers reciprocal obligations on the part of all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to meet that desire. This does NOT mean that all parties to Confederation must bend to these desires. The issue must be resolved through negotiation....refusal to conduct negotiations according to constitutional principles would put the legitimacy of either party's assertion of rights. This refusal could also have important international implications.

Now, if Alberta managed leave Confederation, they would still have a fight on their hands with aboriginal peoples...if our rights were not recognised, we would have to turn to international law to deal with that. However, you can bet that any sort of succession negotiation would involve us...and we've managed to get enough political will to prevent Constitutional amendments before (http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=260).

Holy shit! And I thought Canada was sort of a socialist heaven. My dreams are dashed.

Well...we farm out our racist violence to agents of the state...that's kind of socialist, isn't it? :D

Thanks Neesika. I always wondered about the asset mechanism for natives to aquire money for private enterprise.

I THINK I learned numerous other things too. We'll see how they soak in!

I laughed about your western separatists comment to Llewdor!

Tell me, if you please, what mechanisms are in place for a possible Albertan break from confederation? Of course, existing contractual agreements are valid and legal, and would be honored, but anything past a succession date might take a bend. Is it considered enough of an issue that its discussed?

separation not an easy task, Dion was very unpopular in Quebec with the Clarity Act....if the PQ win the coming provincial election and the following Separation Referendum it will be interesting days....what if the Inuit of the resource rich northern Quebec decide to stay within Canada and demand separation from the province...

you chose palmer as an example of a court making a mistake?! hilarious
It clearly was a mistake, though. The court's ruling was based on something that existed nowhere within the law; they simply made it up. The dissenting opinion makes very sound arguments.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask if you could, erm... not indulge in forum necromancy nearly so much, Llew.
Sometimes I get busy and it takes a couple of weeks to get back to stuff.

Not true, not in practice or theory...the courts balance the need for predictability with the need for flexibility to ensure fairness.
But the fariness is based entirely upon the predictability. How is it fair for me to agree to some terms only to have those terms not be upheld just because the court decided they shouldn't be?

Fairness is for everyone to get that to which they are contractually entitled, but not be held responsible for behaviour which would be contractually supererogatory.

It clearly was a mistake, though. The court's ruling was based on something that existed nowhere within the law; they simply made it up. The dissenting opinion makes very sound arguments.

the principle that people should not profit from their crimes doesn't exist within the entire body of the law?

the principle that people should not profit from their crimes doesn't exist within the entire body of the law?
It does now.

It didn't then.

It clearly was a mistake, though. The court's ruling was based on something that existed nowhere within the law; they simply made it up. The dissenting opinion makes very sound arguments.

Llewdor! You are missing a fundamental understanding of the law...please, please, please...go pick up a basic introduction to the law and get some background. It won't take you that long, I promise...you don't need to get a law degree to fill in this major gap. You do not live in a civil law jurisdiction, where all laws are codified. Common law...judge made law...is the cornerstone of the US and Canadian legal system. You are so absolutely and completely wrong when you say this ruling was 'based on something that existed nowhere within the law'.

In fact, here is a Wikipedia link to get you started.

The common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law).

But the fariness is based entirely upon the predictability. How is it fair for me to agree to some terms only to have those terms not be upheld just because the court decided they shouldn't be?

Fairness is for everyone to get that to which they are contractually entitled, but not be held responsible for behaviour which would be contractually supererogatory.

This is something I can't help you with Llewdor...it's something that, if you are interested, you need to look into yourself, to form a better understanding of. You have some theoretical beliefs about the law, but no way of comparing your ideas to how it is practiced, and therefore, no way of knowing whether the law deviates significantly from your beliefs or not. I can tell you right now, that a lot of the assumptions you are making are totally without foundation in the actual practice of contract law.

It does now.

It didn't then.Wrong. It has existed at English common law and at equity since the 14th century (http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no67/14_Calvert-smith_p173-p188.pdf). (beginning at first of course with forfeiture of lands if convicted of treason, and extending from there)

Now yes, the Supreme Court has reversed itself, and yes, courts can get it wrong. But it is unlikely IN THE EXTREME that any of Lamer's decisions will be reversed.
I don't see why whether it's likely to be reversed is relevant to the discussion of whether it's wrong.
Actually, the court got it exactly right. There may have been no relevant statute dealing with benefiting from the commission of a crime (you forgot to mention that Elmer murdered his grandfather because he was worried the old man might change his will and cut him out), but such prohibitions exist in equity.
In equity? What does that even mean?

And I didn't forget to mention that Elmer killed his grandfather. I didn't mention it because it had no statutory relevance.

And I don't really see how your examples of precatory terms are relevantly similar to Palmer.
Statute AND common law govern wills, and again...the courts in the example you gave made exactly the correct choice.
As I mentioned in my response to Free Soviets, I find the arguments in the dissenting opinion far more reasonable. Judge John Clinton Gray argued that the criminal law established punishment for the murder of Francis Palmer. For the court to deny the estate to Elmer was to, in effect, add significant further punishment to what Elmer received under the criminal statute, something the court was not permitted to do without the express, written statute. The written statutes that existed did not sanction the action of the court and the court cannot simply create or imagine such statutes so as to obtain a morally pleasing result.
No, actually inalienable in the context of aboriginal title means something slightly different than it would in other legal contexts. We can surrender the land ONLY to the Crown, that is a common law principle that predates the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763), but is best described therein.
That makes more sense. Actual inalienable title struck me as a pretty severe restriction of your control over your own land...
So yes, I want our land to remain inalienable...because it means that our lands will continue to remain in our possession for all the future generations...unless we as a community decide otherwise.
...but that little exception at the end precludes it being true inalienable title.

Okay, I get that now. I can just skip all the rest of the bits discussing what your title actually means.

Since I'm avoiding the topic of treaty interpretation at the moment, I'll address areas where there were no treaties. The reason we have more leverage in those negotiations is because the land was never surrendered, and neither were our rights. So you literally have the situation where except for small patches where modern Treaties have been recently signed...ALL of British Colombia, in theory, belongs to BC natives.
Except there's no legal framework that governs that. What we essentially have is a colonial territory. Pre-independence Rhodesia might be analogous.

And that's why I question native leverage. What we have is a big terrtory where no one has ever agreed who owns what, and one side has many more people, much more wealth, and much bigger weapons. So I ask, what's the source of the native leverage? I'm not trying to threaten you - I just don't get why BC feels a particular need to negotiate.

As for your rights, I'll get to that next.
Ah, sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Aboriginal title (land ownership) is just one aboriginal right. So no, we can't say, 'hey we gave up this land but we didn't mean to, give it back'. But not all of our aboriginal rights were extinguished. The right to hunt, for example, was not created by Treaty, it is inherent, and was not extinguished (the the National Resource Transfer Agreements pre-Charter did extinguish the right to hunt commercially, with few exceptions). Similarly, other aboriginal rights still exist, despite the Treaties, and when those rights are infringed, we go to court. So some of our battles are based on Treaty terms, and some are based on inherent aboriginal rights that, unless expressly extinguished, continue to be ours.
Inherent rights? So now you're appealing to an extra-legal fiction - rights that simply exist because they do.

I might go so far as to deny the existence of inherent rights. Much as I broadly deny the existence of implication (which I think is the basis of our disagreement about contracts), I think I need some evidence of inherent rights before I'll believe they're real.
But it MAY. That's my only point.
But for natives to argue that any one in particular does you'd need to prove that somehow, and I don't see how that's possible.
Yes...human rights are SUCH a drag :D.

I'll never get you Western separatists...but that's another topic.
Funding poorly written agreements is the drag. I would argue that the Canadian government's obligations toward Alberta natives would not be broken by independence. In fact, I would support Albertan recognition of aboriginal allodial title to reserve lands, and then have you fight with Canada for continued funding. I'm perfectly happy to deal with aboriginal lands through and international relationship.

Plus, it would make driving through Hobbema more fun. :D
Ah, another area I think that is confusing the issue. Treaties may create rights or extinguish them...but rights exist independent of the Treaties. There is no need to have our rights spelled out in any Treaty in order to 'create them'. Our rights predate the reception of English common law in this country.
Rights are legal constructs. They don't have extra-legal existence.
Won't cover this old ground other than to say...contract law is what it is, and somehow, the economy doesn't grind to a halt, and people entering into contracts still have a very high degree of certainty. The courts feel very strongly about ensuring that.
Certainty is binary. Either you have it or you don't.
Nope, and nope. The easiest breach to prove is the breach of written terms, and most Treaty challenges are based on those terms. But again, intentions of the parties DO matter. It's a complex field, Treaty interpretation, no doubt...and lots of fun. But your view of it is simplistic...and I can't, in the time I have, and in the space of this thread, teach you enough about it for it to make sense.
There's nothing to teach. You're arguing that non-existent content carries legal weight. But, if you'll allow me to make a really fun philosophical point, things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

And those parts of the treaty that aren't contained within the treaty don't exist.
You should note that there have been numerous multi-million dollar contracts made entirely orally. And you'd better believe the courts accept them.
And thus left themselves with no basis at all for any dispute resolution. But as we see with Palmer, the courts are happy to make stuff up.
Okay, the rest of your post quibbles with the law, without actually understanding it. Again, I say this with respect...you simply don't have the background to make this particular argument. So if we're going to continue the discussion on a purely theoretical basis as opposed to how the law actually works, that needs to be made clear, okay?
You're clearly studying the law. I studied the the philosophy of law, so I'm really well versed in not only the theory behind the law, but also many of its gaping logical holes.

If we were having a purely legal discussion, we could just read the decisions and be done with it. What we started out discussing was whether Canada actually violated its treaty obligations, not whether the courts think they did.
Anyway, thanks for the response! I'm glad to find that you aren't a total douchebag like some other posters I won't mention :P
Thank you. One of the reasons I enjoy discussing aboriginal issues is because I don't know a lot about them. But I do know a lot about reason and logic, so those are my typical tools of inquiry.

I don't see why whether it's likely to be reversed is relevant to the discussion of whether it's wrong.

In equity? What does that even mean? The courts of equity (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.2/forum_lobban.html) used to run side by side with courts of law. They were actually two different systems, with two sets of courts, judges, lawyers and rules. The two were merged in the 1850s, so now our judges can make rulings based on law, or equity. For example, specific performance (having to do what you promised to do under the contract you breached) is an equitable remedy, not a remedy in law. Both equity and law ARE law...but they arose under two different systems.


And I didn't forget to mention that Elmer killed his grandfather. I didn't mention it because it had no statutory relevance.

And I don't really see how your examples of precatory terms are relevantly similar to Palmer. Statutes are not the whole law. They aren't even the bulk of the law. And my point with precatory terms is that it doesn't always matter what you want...your will has to conform to some principles that might thwart your wishes. And that's just the way it is...going back to the very beginning of common law, centuries ago.



Except there's no legal framework that governs that. What we essentially have is a colonial territory. Pre-independence Rhodesia might be analogous. On your points about inherent rights etc...actually, they existed in our own system of legal governance...there was no absence of a legal structure here pre-Contact. There is a common law relationship based on various doctrines that recognises our rights as stemming from prior occupation. So we are talking about rights that existed before, in our legal framework, that are recognised as having validity because of prior occupancy, and that are therefore imported into the common law. Hence, we are discussing legal rights, not extra-legal rights.
I think I need some evidence of inherent rights before I'll believe they're real. Some of these inherent rights, based on prior occupancy, are rooted in traditional uses. Hunting for one, is a broad aboriginal right that applies to ALL aboriginal peoples in Canada. Why? Because we had free reign to do so before, and nothing, no Treaty or other agreement has extinguished that right. Why does it exist? Because the common law says it does. It's no more a fiction than any other legal doctrine.

Commercial hunting/fishing, however, was considered an inherent right applying to us all until the National Resource Transfer Agreements, which put 'ownership' of all flora and fauna into Provincial hands. This was pre-Charter, so simple statutes could extinguish aboriginal rights. However, R.v.Badger and other cases have shown that where a community can prove that commercial hunting or fishing was a central practice of that society, and has continued to this day, that the NRTAs did NOT extinguish that right. That's why you have the commercial fishery of Burnt Church, but natives in Alberta getting charged if they try to sell you moose meat.

English common law did not erase aboriginal law. It absorbed it. In certain ways it has supplanted it, and in other ways it has not. Mostly what English common law has tried to do is reconcile our rights as prior occupants, with the needs of settlement and the Crown. It's done a piss poor job in many cases...but it has never outright denied the existence of our rights.



Plus, it would make driving through Hobbema more fun. :D What, like you don't already need a bullet proof jacket? Better buy a tank if what you hope for comes to pass :D
Certainty is binary. Either you have it or you don't. Don't use philosophical definitions for legal terms.
You're clearly studying the law. I studied the the philosophy of law, so I'm really well versed in not only the theory behind the law, but also many of its gaping logical holes. Perhaps, but you have not demonstrated an actual understanding of legal processes, or the laws themselves. Philosophy only gets you so far...you need to understand how the system functions, and THEN make your value judgments. I've seen no evidence that you do actually understand our legal system in anything more than a purely philosophical sense...and that isn't getting you anywhere.

If we were having a purely legal discussion, we could just read the decisions and be done with it. What we started out discussing was whether Canada actually violated its treaty obligations, not whether the courts think they did. You can't talk about 'actual violations' without bringing the legal framework that 'actually' exists into it. Because it isn't your philosophy making the decision, and when you boil it down, EVERY legal system is based on a series of legal fictions. So your opinions, based on philosophy rather than fact, are of very limited use in determining 'actual violation'. Hence my disinterest in actually discussing that. It just doesn't matter in the real world.

Look, you are working from the fiction that the written word is everything.

My people had complex oral contracts and laws.

You are trying to discuss this as though there is an objective truth, an objective system of laws that exists out there, and is not necessarily represented by the system we have here in Canada.

My point is that your beliefs on this, of what law 'should be', is almost completely irrelevant to this discussion. And if you want to talk law, you need to understand it much better than you do.


Thank you. One of the reasons I enjoy discussing aboriginal issues is because I don't know a lot about them. But I do know a lot about reason and logic, so those are my typical tools of inquiry.

As long as you recognise that your 'reason and logic' are rooted in a particular world-view, and are not objectively 'right'.

Y









what a rant, nice to avoid the issues and the obvious.. only see what you want as it suits your self-pity

[QUOTE]t has been estimated that 3/4 of the 'dumped' were of aboriginal ancestry, and they were dumped in the middle of winter as well. Regardless, it's called false arrest, unlawful confinement, and a Charter breach. But you know better than the legislature and the courts, doncha?

3/4 were native? maybe that was because %75 of the indigents were natives...again you play the race card even though 25% were white..what no outrage reserved for the whites? I never said anywhere that it was ethical to dump anyone but that what you choose to believe...

Children were forcibly taken from their families and put in these schools...some families fled to the bush to avoid this government sanctioned kidnapping. Some of these children weren't seen by their families again for 10 years, because they were taken from communities to distant to allow for visits. Sheesh, why do I bother...you clearly know it all, intuiting it despite your complete ignorance on the subject.

treaty obligations required the government to educate the natives, that it was badly implemented is hindsight the intent was to integrate natives into society...that schools were abusive shit holes was standard for the time for natives and whites alike....but again you don't want whitie moving in on your self-pity...only natives were abused to state otherwise must make me ignorant

You are so smart. Amazing. You have it all figured out! Wow! How absolutely fantastic to be you! You, with your unbridled intelligence, can stride in here, and with one fell swoop do away with all the evidence and say, 'look folks, there is no racism here!'.

at no time have I ever denied there was racism, quite the opposite, I have met the racist cops in Saskatoon...I'm quiet familiar with natives and whites(my family as well) alike who received special attention from the police, I grew up there...

"The basic premise of resocialization, of the great transformation from 'savage' to 'civilized', was violent. "To kill the Indian in the child", the department aimed at severing the artery of culture that ran between generations and was the profound connection between parent and child sustaining family and community. In the end, at the point of final assimilation, "all the Indian there is in the race should be dead.""

yup a horrible thing but in the 19th and early 20th century that was likely considered enlightened thinking compared to what the natives experienced south of the border....assimilation is still happening immigrants from all over the world freely assimilate themselves to fit in our cultural mosaic, it's done more gentle now... some choose to keep their old culture alive as well, others do not...our schools now teach many languages including native ones, things have changed, it great to be a kid in school now...

When it came to the soaring suicide rate among aboriginal peoples...five times higher in some aboriginal communities than the rest of Canada...had they only known that Indians themselves were wholly to blame! The commissioners could have put aside the following discoveries altogether:

"Situational factors were considered to be more relevant. The disruptions of family life experienced as a result of enforced attendance at boarding schools, adoption, and fly-out hospitalizations, often for long-term illnesses like tuberculosis, were seen as contributing to suicide.

Culture stress is a term used to refer to the loss of confidence in the ways of understanding life and living that have been taught within a particular culture. It comes about when the complex of relationships, knowledge, languages, social institutions, beliefs, values, and ethical rules that bind a people and give them a collective sense of who they are and where they belong is subjected to change. For aboriginal people, such things as loss of land and control over living conditions, suppression of belief systems and spirituality, weakening of social and political institutions, and racial discrimination have seriously damaged their confidence and thus predisposed them to suicide, self-injury and other self-destructive behaviours."

Fools! How could they not have seen that racism had nothing to do with it? That forced assimilation was totally unrelated to race?


and you think anyone was aware of all that at the time? society was different 150, 100, 75, 50 and even 25 years ago, societies progress and enlighten...abuse that happen 50 or 100 yrs ago due to government policies was normal for the time...The Chinese had an immigrant head tax decades ago, Sikhs were blocked from entering the country, Japanese were disposed and locked in internment camps, WASP's were at the top of the pecking order. ..times change racism is disappearing but you don't want that and you want it all for yourself to wallow in forever.

The Neil Stonechild inquiry (http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca/) uncovered systemic racism within the Saskatoon police force, from refusing to hire qualified aboriginal candidates and a failure to reach out to the aboriginal community...THE LARGEST aboriginal community per capita in any Canadian city. But you could have set them straight! Clearly they got it wrong!

as I posted earlier I was aware of racism long before the commission...but that's not what you want to hear...all you read "whites suffer at the hands of police" and they do but that doesn't fit your politically correct fantasy...so you change what I write to "there is no racism."

FoYou know what, scratch that. Read the fucking RCAP report. Because this isn't about 'boohoo poor me', it's about solutions, laid out in crisp, written form (you should love that), in 444 detailed suggestions as to how to deal with what only YOU and other ilk of your uniformed stature seem to think is an imaginary problem.
rgive me if I take the incredible weight of inquiry after inquiry after commission after report over your, ignorant, and truly pathetic opinion.


:rolleyes: what a sad case you are, because I won't bend to your "Politically Correct" viewpoint I'm ignorant.....sorry I'm not going to play your political correctness game...please let me get my crying towel so I can shed a tear for how my ancestors who were enslaved and killed by the Romans, the French, the Germans, the Vikings, the English and now my culture is all screwed up....Boo hoo....

what it comes down to is this...natives in Canada have many doors open to them that are open to no one else, with benefits that no one else can have, (though you would like to dismiss that, you can't they exist)...in spite of this many continue to occupy the lower rungs of society ....and you are pissed because I refuse to let you hoist all the blame on whitie from decades past....and your best defense is that I deny racism which I never have, but it's the only point you make over and over and over again... repeating the same false allegation doesn't make it true...

now go ahead and call me a racist that's the card you really want to play....

The only label you need is 'willfully blind'. You've failed to do anything but prattle on about what YOU think is true, but you provide no evidence to back yourself up, or to refute the various studies/inquiries/reports I've tossed your way. You haven't refused me anything...because you haven't actually once stated a fact and backed it up. You haven't engaged in debate, you've just said, 'I know about the evidence! I do, I do! But I'm going to ignore it, and assume that you are blaming whitey, and no amount of facts to the contrary are going to sway the way I want to perceive what you've said!'

No. You don't know about the evidence, because you clearly haven't looked at it. I don't need to reiterate the arguments made in RCAP, in the various inquiries I both linked, and alluded to. Because it's all there baby, for you to educate yourself with...and not one of those reports lays the blame squarely on 'whitey'...they are all quite cognizant of current socio-economic factors that exacerbate the situation. Once again...not even your government supports your belief that historical oppression is mostly meaningless, nor does it absolve itself from engaging in racism simply because 'that was what was done back then'. So don't froth at the mouth trying to defend your ignorance...learn. You don't get to come in here waving your dick around and expect me to take your unsourced, undefended OPINIONS with anything but a heaping spoon full of salt.

You want to hear me say 'blame whitey', but you can't actually find me saying it, so you read it in. Once again...I support the 444 recommendations laid out in the RCAP report as a method for reconciliation between Canada and it's aboriginal peoples. YOU would have people believe there is no such need, and that no one but we should be held accountable for our present state of affairs.

Willfully blind. You are the definition of this term.

What does a government do, when it has committed a wrong? Well, it tries to make things right (at best). So, Japanese internment...compensation. Chinese head tax....compensation. Residential schooling...compensation. And it is not as though WHITE students (since you are such a defender of WHITE people and all the abuse WHITE people suffer at the hands of OTHER WHITE people...) were not able to sue the shit out of the clergy for sexual abuse dating to way back when. So? Your point is?

Yammering on about poor white people and WHY DON'T WE THINK ABOUT THE WHITES and trying to use examples of how white people have been harmed or abused (again, need I say it, but predominantly by other white people) as though you can use this as some sort of proof that racism against aboriginal people is...what...a historical relic? Or, something that exists today, but is disconnected from history? Or something that exists today, but is the fault of aboriginal people? I'm not seeing your point here..and you know why? Because you don't actually have one. You have some sort of issue with your government taking responsibility for its actions, for admitting to its wrongs, and attempting to make amends. Why, I simply can not fathom. But don't lay your vague feeling of 'what about whitey' on me. If you think there is some sort of systemic racism against you, by all means...petition to have a Royal Commission on the subject.

*chuckles*

Llewdor! You are missing a fundamental understanding of the law...please, please, please...go pick up a basic introduction to the law and get some background. It won't take you that long, I promise...you don't need to get a law degree to fill in this major gap. You do not live in a civil law jurisdiction, where all laws are codified. Common law...judge made law...is the cornerstone of the US and Canadian legal system. You are so absolutely and completely wrong when you say this ruling was 'based on something that existed nowhere within the law'.

In fact, here is a Wikipedia link to get you started.

The common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law).
As your link points out, the common law isn't written definitively anywhere, and thus isn't knowable. Anyone who bases his decisions upon it can be doing nothing but guessing.

Neesika is a activist for her people and as a member of a free society, gets to choose the focus of her interests.

While she is likely sympathetic to the plight of homeless in say, Laos, its out of the scope of her time and energy. Likewise, homeless white people in Canada have enough advocacy, and its not your place to demand that she concern herself with that.

Racism be damned, she wants to achieve something, and dedicating her efforts to a niche is a excellent thing to do as a professional. No one would ever say a podiatrist refusing to treat genital herpes is discriminatory! Neesika is going to be a specialist Lawyer, and it behooves her to focus her studies, oratory and attentions on the facet of law that she is interested in doing.

As your link points out, the common law isn't written definitively anywhere, and thus isn't knowable. Anyone who bases his decisions upon it can be doing nothing but guessing.

So the entire legal systems of the U.S., the U.K., and other common law nations are fictional?

You really need to learn more about these subjects before teeing off.

The courts of equity (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.2/forum_lobban.html) used to run side by side with courts of law. They were actually two different systems, with two sets of courts, judges, lawyers and rules. The two were merged in the 1850s, so now our judges can make rulings based on law, or equity. For example, specific performance (having to do what you promised to do under the contract you breached) is an equitable remedy, not a remedy in law. Both equity and law ARE law...but they arose under two different systems.
Thanks. I wasn't at all familiar with the term.
Statutes are not the whole law.
Perhaps they should be. The law would be far more reasonable if that were so.
They aren't even the bulk of the law. And my point with precatory terms is that it doesn't always matter what you want...your will has to conform to some principles that might thwart your wishes. And that's just the way it is...going back to the very beginning of common law, centuries ago.
But I should be able to know in advance what those restrictions are, and I hope they relate only to the precision of the document. If I describe in perfectly precise terms what I'd like done with my estate, and there can be no dispute what I would like done with my estate under any possible circumstances, I see no reason why the court would ever see fit to overrule me.
On your points about inherent rights etc...actually, they existed in our own system of legal governance...there was no absence of a legal structure here pre-Contact. There is a common law relationship based on various doctrines that recognises our rights as stemming from prior occupation. So we are talking about rights that existed before, in our legal framework, that are recognised as having validity because of prior occupancy, and that are therefore imported into the common law. Hence, we are discussing legal rights, not extra-legal rights.
So they're just prior rights, not inherent rights. Inherent rights would exist a priori, but that's not what you're describing.

I'm not trying to make out your points to be other than what they are; I'm just trying to understand them.
Some of these inherent rights, based on prior occupancy, are rooted in traditional uses. Hunting for one, is a broad aboriginal right that applies to ALL aboriginal peoples in Canada. Why? Because we had free reign to do so before, and nothing, no Treaty or other agreement has extinguished that right. Why does it exist? Because the common law says it does. It's no more a fiction than any other legal doctrine.
Would you agree that before the common law said so (so, pre-contact), there was no legal framework granting those rights? Or would you say they still existed as inherent rights? Because then those would be inherent rights, and I'd dispute their existence and suggest they arose through legal error.
English common law did not erase aboriginal law. It absorbed it. In certain ways it has supplanted it, and in other ways it has not. Mostly what English common law has tried to do is reconcile our rights as prior occupants, with the needs of settlement and the Crown. It's done a piss poor job in many cases...but it has never outright denied the existence of our rights.
But what reason do we have to believe that they existed in the first place?
What, like you don't already need a bullet proof jacket? Better buy a tank if what you hope for comes to pass :D
I used to drive through Hobbema all the time in the '80s. It was a good place to buy gas.
Don't use philosophical definitions for legal terms.
Now this raises several interesting points. Two in particular I'd like to address are:

1) Are jurors given definitions of relevant legal terms when they serve, or do you run the risk of having someone like me on the jury who convinces everyone that reasonable means "using solely formal logic"? Or even just staunchly holds that position and hangs your jury?

2) What if legal definitions are nonsensical? I have tried for some time, but I simply cannot wrap my head around the legal definition of "reasonable man", even though that reasonable man is appealed to time and time again in jurisprudence. Standards of proof are based on the reasonable man, which makes the defintion pretty central to the entire system.
Perhaps, but you have not demonstrated an actual understanding of legal processes, or the laws themselves. Philosophy only gets you so far...you need to understand how the system functions, and THEN make your value judgments.
That position makes you a legal realist - you hold that laws only exist as they are applied. That actually makes judicial error impossible except in hindsight upon reversal.

And I disagree wholeheartedly.
You can't talk about 'actual violations' without bringing the legal framework that 'actually' exists into it. Because it isn't your philosophy making the decision, and when you boil it down, EVERY legal system is based on a series of legal fictions.
But is that necessarily true? Does it have to be the case?
So your opinions, based on philosophy rather than fact, are of very limited use in determining 'actual violation'. Hence my disinterest in actually discussing that. It just doesn't matter in the real world.
Can we not evaluate past decisions? Or, as I suggested earlier, do you think the courts infallible?

At the time any decision is made, there are possible wrong answers. There have to be, otherwise the law becomes a total crapshoot, and you can't know the likely outcome any more than I do.
Look, you are working from the fiction that the written word is everything.
Not the written word so much as reason and logic. The written word only serves to be content of irrefutable meaning. If we both signed the contract, then we both agreed to exactly what is written on the page. That cannot be in dispute, and thus that should take precedence in determining breach.
My people had complex oral contracts and laws.
But without conclusive evidence supporting one position or another, how were disputes resolved?
You are trying to discuss this as though there is an objective truth, an objective system of laws that exists out there, and is not necessarily represented by the system we have here in Canada.
And again, there has to be a right answer to any question, regardless of whether the court finds it. Before the ruling is made, there do exist possible rulings which are objectively wrong (in that they run counter to the law).
My point is that your beliefs on this, of what law 'should be', is almost completely irrelevant to this discussion. And if you want to talk law, you need to understand it much better than you do.
My greater point her eis that if law is as you describe it, then it is not knowable to anyone and we effectively live by the whims of whoever happens to be running the court that day.
As long as you recognise that your 'reason and logic' are rooted in a particular world-view, and are not objectively 'right'.
They're axiomatic. They can't be wrong.

For a law student you have remarkably little training in formal logic.

Neesika is a activist for her people and as a member of a free society, gets to choose the focus of her interests.

While she is likely sympathetic to the plight of homeless in say, Laos, its out of the scope of her time and energy. Likewise, homeless white people in Canada have enough advocacy, and its not your place to demand that she concern herself with that.

Racism be damned, she wants to achieve something, and dedicating her efforts to a niche is a excellent thing to do as a professional. No one would ever say a podiatrist refusing to treat genital herpes is discriminatory! Neesika is going to be a specialist Lawyer, and it behooves her to focus her studies, oratory and attentions on the facet of law that she is interested in doing.

In all fairness, it's not like she forgot to mention homeless people in general. This started as a criticism of police forces abusing charter rights, of indigents. The fact that many of these indigents are also indigenous, is of particular relevance to her.

The fact that this thread has largely turned into an aboriginal rights thread is largely due to the knee-jerk reactions of some, and Neesika's love of refuting such reactions; knee-jerk or otherwise. The use of the words indigenous and indigent probably also struck her as cleverly alliterative at the time. *shrugs*.

I'm actually curious about the specific Charter breaches.

While I'm aware that every person has the right to freedom of movement, clearly there are cases where it is in the providence of law enforcement to infringe upon those rights. Is the issue here that the police are detaining people without reasonable cause?

One of the few things I remember from OAC law, (oh so many years ago) was that if stopped and questioned by a police officer, you have the right to ask 'Am I being detained, or am I under arrest?'. If neither, you have the legal right to just walk away. What are the legal reasons for detaining the indigent and indigenous in this case? Are there legal justifications for doing so? Loitering or something?

What are the legal responsiblities of law enforcement when it comes to dropping off a homeless person?

One of the other things I recall from that law class, was something related to our constitution, yet can't seem to find in it anywhere. The idea was that the law can 'work around' the constitution/charter if such law can be proven to exist 'in a free and just, democratic society'. So, say for example if we were to look at New York City, and wanted to implement similar measures to clean up a city in Canada, one could say that such laws exist in a 'free and just, democratic society. (I can already hear some of you giggling.) Again, I can't find it anywhere in the literature, but I distinctly recall the discussion.

While I don't doubt that there is systemic racism in law enforcement, I refuse to believe that all cops are in the business of tormenting the homeless and Indians. So, what exactly is going on? Is it political pressure on one side to 'clean up' a certain part of the city, without a legal framework to do so?

EDIT: Never Mind. Just re-read the first post. *slaps forehead*

Oh, pshaw. What a dreadful life it would be were we to agree on all matters, eh wot? All I ask is that we keep our lines of communication open, and to try, whenever possible, to avoid doctrinaire thinking. Other than that, I'll be damned if I'll ever be a willing party to a mutual head-nodding encounter.

Vive la difference!

*nods head*

*nods head*

Mike, you bastard - !

Mike, you bastard - !

Heh-heh... ;)

As your link points out, the common law isn't written definitively anywhere, and thus isn't knowable. Anyone who bases his decisions upon it can be doing nothing but guessing.

Llewdor. Please. Stop. Talking. Out of your Ass.

It's a little embarrassing at this point. The common law is written, exhaustively written...both in cases, and case commentaries. Torts, for example, are summarised with extreme precision, as is contract law, etc etc etc. Judges are bound by precedent...and you can't have precedent if there is no record of interpretations of the law to go from.

You just have to stop...and read up on the subject. You can't guess your way into figuring it out. Christ.

Likewise, homeless white people in Canada have enough advocacy, and its not your place to demand that she concern herself with that. And yet I do:) I do quite a bit of poverty activism...and I don't turn away non-aboriginal people.

Racism be damned, she wants to achieve something, and dedicating her efforts to a niche is a excellent thing to do as a professional. No one would ever say a podiatrist refusing to treat genital herpes is discriminatory! Neesika is going to be a specialist Lawyer, and it behooves her to focus her studies, oratory and attentions on the facet of law that she is interested in doing.Nor do I focus only on aboriginal issues. It just so happens that aboriginal issues is what I am discussing here.

If you want to discuss immigration...well I've got a wealth of experience working with immigrants, and working on immigration reform as well. And guess what SP...WHITE people immigrate here too! :eek:

Thanks. I wasn't at all familiar with the term.

Perhaps they should be. The law would be far more reasonable if that were so. Until you learn more about the subject, I am simply not going to discuss the law as it is with you.
Would you agree that before the common law said so (so, pre-contact), there was no legal framework granting those rights?

Jesus Christ Llewdor, aren't you listening at all? OF COURSE I wouldn't say that! Why? Because our people had their own laws. There was indeed a legal framework in place before English common law...a very complex one in fact. What...you think we just wandered around waiting for there to be some sort of rules to follow?

Sheesh.

And then the two legal systems met. And common law principles were flexible enough to deal with pre-existing legal structures. And it was good :D (well not really, but it sounded nice)


Now this raises several interesting points. Two in particular I'd like to address are:

1) Are jurors given definitions of relevant legal terms when they serve, or do you run the risk of having someone like me on the jury who convinces everyone that reasonable means "using solely formal logic"? Or even just staunchly holds that position and hangs your jury?

Relevant legal terms and concepts are explained to the jury. For example, in a criminal trial, the elements of the crime are explained, the actus reas and the mens rea. The jury are instructed as to what would prove these two elements, and what would not. The jury has to abide by the legal definitions...but then again...you might still be able to hang the jury. That's the risk we run with jury trials.


2) What if legal definitions are nonsensical? I have tried for some time, but I simply cannot wrap my head around the legal definition of "reasonable man", even though that reasonable man is appealed to time and time again in jurisprudence. Standards of proof are based on the reasonable man, which makes the defintion pretty central to the entire system. Hahahaha, yes, the reasonable man...it's not that it's non-sensical, but rather that the 'reasonable man' is a flexible concept. It can not be rigid. What a 'reasonable man' would do is going to vary on all the circumstances. Somehow, juries manage to create a fairly decent 'reasonable man' tailored to the circumstances.

That position makes you a legal realist - you hold that laws only exist as they are applied. That actually makes judicial error impossible except in hindsight upon reversal. Nope, I'm a legal cynic. And I'd actually discuss my philosophies on the law with you if you had the background for it. Not trying to be rude, but I don't want to have to delve into the history of torts, and get you caught up until the present day just so I can have the joy of picking them apart.



But is that necessarily true? Does it have to be the case? Yes, I believe so. You say, 'this is how it is' and you wrap the law around it. Someone else says, 'no, THIS is how it is' and they wrap their law around it. Law is intrinsicaly linked to culture. But this discussion belongs in your other thread.


Can we not evaluate past decisions? Or, as I suggested earlier, do you think the courts infallible? YOU can not evaluate past decisions until you have an understanding of the law behind those decisions. Evaluating them purely on your philosophical beliefs is not going to help. If you understood the common law, for example, I doubt you'd be so opposed to the Palmer decision...but I am NOT going to lay that out for you.


Not the written word so much as reason and logic. The written word only serves to be content of irrefutable meaning. If we both signed the contract, then we both agreed to exactly what is written on the page. That cannot be in dispute, and thus that should take precedence in determining breach. You are assuming there will always be consensus ad idem, a meeting of the minds, in its most complete form, and that somehow, the written word will triumph, and make it so. No. Because even in purely written contracts, there are disputes as to meaning. And that will ALWAYS be the case.

But without conclusive evidence supporting one position or another, how were disputes resolved? Through the community. There were always witnesses to the arrangments, and the formal contract was memorised, and sometimes symbolised (wampum rows, etc). It was not just an issue of one word against another...for example, Treaties between nations, like the one between the Cree and the Stoney...the treaty was for as long as the river flows (hence the name of the Peace River)...and all members of the nation knew of it, and knew the terms. There was no real way someone was going to be able to dispute those terms. Anyway, there are many interesting studies done on our oral practices and laws...in particular you should check out John Borrows from UBC. Run a search...lots of good stuff. Avoid Taiaiake Alfred from UVic though...to be blunt, he's a racist.


My greater point her eis that if law is as you describe it, then it is not knowable to anyone and we effectively live by the whims of whoever happens to be running the court that day. Nope, and you'd understand this if you looked into it, even just a little bit.

They're axiomatic. They can't be wrong.

For a law student you have remarkably little training in formal logic.

:rolleyes: Axioms are taken for granted as true. And everything is built upon that assumption.

Kind of like legal systems.

EDIT: Never Mind. Just re-read the first post. *slaps forehead*

I'll get into the case with you when I have a bit more energy. It's an interesting situation, and the defence will be the 'legal exercise of authority'. I'll get into that, the Charter challenge, and the possibilities at a later time:)

And in the news today, an inquiry is finally going to be held (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070223.wxbcfrank23/BNStory/National/home) into the freezing death of another aboriginal man in Vancouver BC.

"VANCOUVER — Nine years after Frank Paul died in a back alley where he had been "dumped" by police, and just a few days after a prison guard went public with concerns that have long haunted him, the British Columbia government has called for a public inquiry into the incident.

Mr. Paul, who was discharged although he was too intoxicated to stand, officially died of hypothermia after lying exposed to a cold rain for hours.

It was Mr. Firlotte who dragged Mr. Paul's limp body to a waiting police wagon, which he thought would take the 47-year-old Mi'kmaq man back to his home in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

Instead, it appears Mr. Paul was left outside to die."

Hey, SP...why don't you find me an example of a white man left out by the cops to die in the cold, hmmmm?

Llewdor. Please. Stop. Talking. Out of your Ass.

It's a little embarrassing at this point. The common law is written, exhaustively written...both in cases, and case commentaries. Torts, for example, are summarised with extreme precision, as is contract law, etc etc etc. Judges are bound by precedent...and you can't have precedent if there is no record of interpretations of the law to go from.
If that were true there would never be dissenting opinions.

If something is knowable then it's knoable with certainty. Without certainty there is no knowledge, and people are left to guess. That they guess well doesn't make then right - just lucky.

Relevant legal terms and concepts are explained to the jury.
Every time? Really? That must take forever.
Somehow, juries manage to create a fairly decent 'reasonable man' tailored to the circumstances.
Jurors are not typically reasonable people. They don't see their own logical errors.
Nope, I'm a legal cynic. And I'd actually discuss my philosophies on the law with you if you had the background for it.
I have a degree in legal philosophy. What more do you want?

And I fail to see how the history of the law is necessarily relevant.
YOU can not evaluate past decisions until you have an understanding of the law behind those decisions. Evaluating them purely on your philosophical beliefs is not going to help. If you understood the common law, for example, I doubt you'd be so opposed to the Palmer decision...but I am NOT going to lay that out for you.
Disagreeing with that decision is hardly a radical position. After all, there was a dissenting position written by a presiding judge.
You are assuming there will always be consensus ad idem, a meeting of the minds, in its most complete form, and that somehow, the written word will triumph, and make it so. No. Because even in purely written contracts, there are disputes as to meaning. And that will ALWAYS be the case.
If the terms are all well defined, one cannot pretend to misunderstand.
Nope, and you'd understand this if you looked into it, even just a little bit.
If it fails to be entirely rational, I would not understand it, because it wouldn't make any sense.
Axioms are taken for granted as true. And everything is built upon that assumption.
Right, and given the assumptions errors are impossible.

And in the news today, an inquiry is finally going to be held (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070223.wxbcfrank23/BNStory/National/home) into the freezing death of another aboriginal man in Vancouver BC.

"VANCOUVER — Nine years after Frank Paul died in a back alley where he had been "dumped" by police, and just a few days after a prison guard went public with concerns that have long haunted him, the British Columbia government has called for a public inquiry into the incident.

Mr. Paul, who was discharged although he was too intoxicated to stand, officially died of hypothermia after lying exposed to a cold rain for hours.

It was Mr. Firlotte who dragged Mr. Paul's limp body to a waiting police wagon, which he thought would take the 47-year-old Mi'kmaq man back to his home in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

Instead, it appears Mr. Paul was left outside to die."

Hey, SP...why don't you find me an example of a white man left out by the cops to die in the cold, hmmmm?


It's disgusting that it took nine years and a confession from a jail gaurd to even begin an inquiry into this. The fact that Frank Paul's body was found dead in an alley shortly after his visit with the police should have been enough for an inquiry at the very least.

I do wonder however, if his being a Mi'kmaq is the reason. Could the cops not have dumped any drunk out in the rain? Or does all evidence point to this being only done to natives?

It's disgusting that it took nine years and a confession from a jail gaurd to even begin an inquiry into this. The fact that Frank Paul's body was found dead in an alley shortly after his visit with the police should have been enough for an inquiry at the very least.

I do wonder however, if his being a Mi'kmaq is the reason. Could the cops not have dumped any drunk out in the rain? Or does all evidence point to this being only done to natives?

Political pressure is definitely a reason public inquiries ever actually happen. But I simply can not imagine there being no public outrage powerful enough to trigger an inquiry were people to find out that ANYONE had been dumped by the police and left to die...aboriginal or not. It's unconscionable.

Every time? Really? That must take forever. Not really...it's not like the entire bulk of the law must be explained...there are usually only a few charges, and a few important terms to deal with.


I have a degree in legal philosophy. What more do you want?

And I fail to see how the history of the law is necessarily relevant. Because you are trying to say a decision is wrong because you think that the only thing that matters is a statute. What I want from you, is for you to have even a basic background of law...not the philosophy of law, but the actual nitty gritty of it. Because you DO NOT understand it, and yet you have convinced yourself that you do. So you are making these assertions left and right in complete and utter ignorance. It's like you relying on your philosophy of science to tell you whether an electical engineer designed a control panel properly. You just don't have the background to comment in anything but a philosophical (and frankly useless for the purposes of this discussion) way.



Disagreeing with that decision is hardly a radical position. After all, there was a dissenting position written by a presiding judge. And yet, because you do not understand the law, you THINK you understand the dissent. You don't. Sorry.



Right, and given the assumptions errors are impossible.
Sure. You can't get it wrong when you've already made something up and declared it to be true.:eek:

Political pressure is definitely a reason public inquiries ever actually happen. But I simply can not imagine there being no public outrage powerful enough to trigger an inquiry were people to find out that ANYONE had been dumped by the police and left to die...aboriginal or not. It's unconscionable.

It is indeed. But never underestimate the power of people to turn to the sports section instead. The Starlight Tours issue helps to illuminate a problem with police and the aboriginal community, and the fact that Frank Paul was also aboriginal makes it prime journalistic material. Ten years ago, I'm not so sure the death of a homeless person with a record of drunken behaviour would have registered with the major media, allegations or not. Without the mounting political pressure, I think most people just wanted to give the police the benefit of the doubt, rediculous as that may be.

It is indeed. But never underestimate the power of people to turn to the sports section instead. The Starlight Tours issue helps to illuminate a problem with police and the aboriginal community, and the fact that Frank Paul was also aboriginal makes it prime journalistic material. Ten years ago, I'm not so sure the death of a homeless person with a record of drunken behaviour would have registered with the major media, allegations or not. Without the mounting political pressure, I think most people just wanted to give the police the benefit of the doubt, rediculous as that may be.
There is a lot more public attention not just on aboriginal people, but on the homeless, and the poor. Not enough yet, for sure...but I think it's less about a lack of interest than a lack of coverage...if no one ever hears about it, there's nothing to be outraged about.

There is a lot more public attention not just on aboriginal people, but on the homeless, and the poor. Not enough yet, for sure...but I think it's less about a lack of interest than a lack of coverage...if no one ever hears about it, there's nothing to be outraged about.

Well, that's why you and the internet happen to exist at the same time, eh?

I'll admit that I'm far more informed now then ever I was before I decided to make a little micro-nation and browsed the general forums. Kudos!

Well, it's past lights out in Mikesburg. Time to turn in.

Well, that's why you and the internet happen to exist at the same time, eh?

I'll admit that I'm far more informed now then ever I was before I decided to make a little micro-nation and browsed the general forums. Kudos!

Well, it's past lights out in Mikesburg. Time to turn in.

Thanks, that's a fantastic compliment:)

Yes, time to sleep...even angry aboriginal feminists need to rest :P

I'm moving a conversation from another thread over here...think it fits better.

I'm actually okay with affirmative action, to a point. For example, I am okay with the fact that First Nations people get alot of government assistance, because I have a native friend, and we've discussed this, and it's not really how it seems. However, I'm not really okay with my 1/8 métis friend getting free university tuition, as she's much better off financially than I am.


There's no such thing as a 1/8 Metis. You are, or you aren't, and it isn't about blood quantum.

Well, she really hasn't had any straight natives in the family for like two-hundred years. She's completely whitewashed; she shouldn't be getting free University.

How in the world do people tell who is what? There's no genetic basis for it. Is there a scientific standard that can be tested?

I really don't know. The only thing I know about this situation is that she has a nice house, car, furniture, fancy re-done kitchen, and a loaded gradma who's offered to pay her full tuition anyways, while my mum and I are scrounging every week to pay the heating bills. Yet she's the one who gets offered free tuition, because a century or two ago, one of her anscestors married a Native guy. That's ridiculous, and it completely discredits Affirmative Action for people who really do need it.
Seriously, Terrorist Cakes *edited*. It's not affirmative action. What province are you in? Then I can give you the specifics on the funding arrangements. Either she's getting a few years paid for by hobbling together bursuries and scholarships (private monies that the donors can create ANY criteria for) that are for Metis students, or the Metis Nation is paying for some of her studies via their own monies. And each Metis Nation is involved in various business ventures, in addition to being funded by private citizens, or donations from businesses, with a trickle of funding from the government generally used for reasearch...so once again, PRIVATE, NOT STATE money.

You want that? Go find a fucking Irish or whatever you are association that will help you apply for bursaries for Irish students (they exist) and ask them to help you out. It's not as though she's stealing money from you to go to school, which is essentially what you're making it sound like. Your financial situation is hardly her fault.



She's not native, duh, she's Metis. The Metis are a distinct aboriginal people, who by defination can never be full blooded Indians. They have their own language (Michif) and established their own governments and societies. Some Metis are very white, some are very native looking. Colour is not at all the issue...culture is. And you are, or you aren't.

To be Metis you:
1) Must be descended from a historic Metis community. Extensive lineage research is used as proof.
2) Must self identify as Metis.
3) Must be accepted by a Metis community.

It's not about fucking science, it's about culture.Sounds like bullshit to me. Sounds racist.Because it's not about blood? Nice criteria you have there.

Doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, frankly. The Metis people are recognised as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. And the Canadian government (as always) has defined how Metis people will be recognised. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you don't like that definition.

Well, she doesn't live with Métis culture, that's for sure. Her grandparents did, hence I refer to her as part-Métis.

Sorry...you're an expert on Metis culture? Do you also expect Indians to live in teepees and hunt with a bow and arrow?

Do Chinese people have to speak Chinese and eat Chinese food, or get disqualified as being ethnically Chinese?

No.

So why do you suddenly think you get to tell a Metis person how 'authentic' they must be to be called Metis?

Quick answer...you don't.

2. and 3. sure seem to be about culture, but number 1 sounds like your parents have to be Metis, and your grandparents etc etc.

How is number 1 not about genetics?
To be a status Indian in Canada, you must be at least 50%. There is NO blood quantum for Metis. Even if your parents and all the way down the line to your great, great, great, great grandparents were hardcore Metis...but you are no longer accepted by a Metis community, or you don't self-identify, you are not Metis. On the flip side, you could have someone whose great-grandparents were Metis, and they themselves are hardcore members of the community and self-identify...that person is Metis.

Capiche?

I see. If I was adopted by Metis parents, and the tribe accepted me, I would be Metis. How silly.Tribe. Jesus Christ, Eve, educate yourself (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sjm5_e.html).

" A comment to the Commission from Delbert Majer makes the point:

I'll say I'm Métis or other young people that I know that are Métis have been confronted with the same question: 'Oh, I didn't think you were Métis. You don't look it.' You know, it's not a biological issue. It's a cultural, historical issue and it's a way of life issue; and it's not what you look like on the outside, it's how you carry yourself around on the inside that is important, both in your mind and your soul and your heart."


Guess what...if you were adopted by a Cree family, you'd be Cree too.

But you don't get to marry in and become Cree or Metis. And you don't get to 'join' in any other way.

A family from up in the NWT adopted a black boy from Harlem. He was raised Gwich'in, has status as Gwich'in...but shockingly, AMAZINGLY, he's STILL BLACK. You can be more than one thing...

And before any one asks...no, not every person who has an Indian in the woodpile is Metis. Not all half-breeds were Metis.

And by the way Terrorist Cakes...if your FN friend was 'much better off financially' than you...you're saying that you wouldn't resent that, but it's okay to resent it when the person is Metis?

Doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, frankly. The Metis people are recognised as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. And the Canadian government (as always) has defined how Metis people will be recognised. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you don't like that definition.

*Jabba laugh*

Burn, baby. Burn.

And before any one asks...no, not every person who has an Indian in the woodpile is Metis. Not all half-breeds were Metis.

I wouldn't be who I am if I didn't happen to have that 1/16th dash of Mi'kmaq in me. None of my siblings got the same genes I did - and I look nothing like my eldest sib, with his blonde hair, blue eyes, patrician nose and skin that turns red as a russet at the slightest hint of sunshine.

But even though I've got enough Mi'kmaq in me to confuse the Hell out of strangers when they try pigeon-holing my ethnicity (Greek? Italian? Lebanese? Something Mediterranean, surely!), I can't and don't identify with status Indians - as other than during college and later, in professional life, my dealings with aboriginals have been fleeting at best.

I am who I am and I don't feel a particular need to think of myself as belonging to a cultural group I've only ever been cursorily aware of.

I'm moving a conversation from another thread over here...think it fits better.

Even though it fits better here, it does largely touch on the whole 'white angst' issue.

We as a nation (Canadians I mean) have been trying to socially engineer a society where all creeds and cultures are not only accepted, but embraced. We have a Charter that confirms that no one shall be treated differently based on their race, religion, etc., with the exception of ameliorating conditions of racial groups sufferieng injustices. So the majority of us who have embraced this concept, hit a brick wall when suddenly, the rule seems to be everyone's equal... except the Indians.

Part of the evolution of our society, and not something that's going to change, without massive social upheaval. Obviously there's a lot of amelioration that needs to be taken care of in the aboriginal community. But one can't ignore that from a non-aboriginal standpoint, the issue of being treated differently under the law based on your bloodline flies in the face of what we've been trying to build. If anything, citizenship and awards based on bloodline is part of what we as a nation were fighting agaisn in Germany (and in all fairness, it wasn't so much the citizenship by bloodline thing that we were fighting, but what the end result of that was).

So, while Terrorist Cakes may have mistaken the criterion for Metis status, she seems to be coming from an egalitarian standpoint; amelioration should be based on economic status, not race, or bloodline.

The Indian Act, which you have so clearly demonstrated in prior threads, is the largest factor in preventing aboriginal communities from taking charge of their lives and fortunes. It also, in my mind, divides the aboriginal people from the rest of Canada. While we continue to have one set of rules for one group of people, and another set for the rest of Canada, that division will always be present, regardless of how much people educate themselves.

A 'one set of rules fits all' mentality doesn't wash with me, frankly. And in fact, that 'one set of rules' is PRECISELY what we are fighting against. We will slowly regain our sovereignty, we will reinstitute our laws, our customs, our methods of governance...and it is not going to look like the Canadian system at all. There will be blending, there will be adaptation, there will be innovation...but there will not be 'one' system. Then again, you could argue that there isn't any one system in Canada anyway.

People need to recognise the fact that as much as they want 'equality' to mean 'we should all be the same', it makes a hell of a lot more sense to fight for equity, and fairness. Because at the end of the day, what I believe is THE most fundamental right, is the right of a people to govern themselves as they see fit, as long as the way they go about it does not harm others. Our right to do this has been interupted, but never extinguished.

I don't give a flying fuck if someone is upset that someone else got a BURSURY (or Metis funding) because of their ethnicity. Anyone can create a bursury and attach the most ridiculous requirements to it...why? Because it's THEIR money. And communities can support their members at any time, under any circumstances. Confusing the issue with Treaty rights is pointless. Terrorist Cakes outright said 'that's okay' when it comes to FNs, who are funded by the state, and by their bands...but somehow it's not okay for the Metis. Hey, is it okay for grandchildren of vets to get funding based on that criteria? Is it okay for people who come from Northern Alberta to get funding based on that criteria. Yeah, it's okay. So don't look at someone else, and out of pure jealousy, blame them for getting what you aren't. Most funding available for University students is NOT based on financial need...it's on marks.

NO ONE ELSE IN CANADA can compare themselves to aboriginal people. Not because we are inherently superior, or inferior, or inherently anything...but because of the specific and unique circumstances that led to the creation of this country. We were not passive agents in that creation...we were active participants, we were here, with our cultures, our governments, our laws, and our relationship to the land... and goddamn rights that needs to be acknowledged.

When I hear "Oh, it's not fair, oh, it's racist, oh oh I want some of that too..." I want to say: suck it up, and accept that your circumstances are not, and never will be the same...and imposing 'equality' to pretend that your situation IS the same, is wrong...so fucking incredibly wrong, that it amazes me to no end that so many can't see it.

The details need to be worked out...but don't get caught up in them. It boils down to something more fundamental. This is OUR homeland, first and foremost, we have no other. We have always been willing to share...but we will NOT be made into Canadian citizens only, severed from our position as aboriginal peoples.

A 'one set of rules fits all' mentality doesn't wash with me, frankly. And in fact, that 'one set of rules' is PRECISELY what we are fighting against. We will slowly regain our sovereignty, we will reinstitute our laws, our customs, our methods of governance...and it is not going to look like the Canadian system at all. There will be blending, there will be adaptation, there will be innovation...but there will not be 'one' system. Then again, you could argue that there isn't any one system in Canada anyway.

People need to recognise the fact that as much as they want 'equality' to mean 'we should all be the same', it makes a hell of a lot more sense to fight for equity, and fairness. Because at the end of the day, what I believe is THE most fundamental right, is the right of a people to govern themselves as they see fit, as long as the way they go about it does not harm others. Our right to do this has been interupted, but never extinguished.

I don't give a flying fuck if someone is upset that someone else got a BURSURY (or Metis funding) because of their ethnicity. Anyone can create a bursury and attach the most ridiculous requirements to it...why? Because it's THEIR money. And communities can support their members at any time, under any circumstances. Confusing the issue with Treaty rights is pointless. Terrorist Cakes outright said 'that's okay' when it comes to FNs, who are funded by the state, and by their bands...but somehow it's not okay for the Metis. Hey, is it okay for grandchildren of vets to get funding based on that criteria? Is it okay for people who come from Northern Alberta to get funding based on that criteria. Yeah, it's okay. So don't look at someone else, and out of pure jealousy, blame them for getting what you aren't. Most funding available for University students is NOT based on financial need...it's on marks.

NO ONE ELSE IN CANADA can compare themselves to aboriginal people. Not because we are inherently superior, or inferior, or inherently anything...but because of the specific and unique circumstances that led to the creation of this country. We were not passive agents in that creation...we were active participants, we were here, with our cultures, our governments, our laws, and our relationship to the land... and goddamn rights that needs to be acknowledged.

When I hear "Oh, it's not fair, oh, it's racist, oh oh I want some of that too..." I want to say: suck it up, and accept that your circumstances are not, and never will be the same...and imposing 'equality' to pretend that your situation IS the same, is wrong...so fucking incredibly wrong, that it amazes me to no end that so many can't see it.

The details need to be worked out...but don't get caught up in them. It boils down to something more fundamental. This is OUR homeland, first and foremost, we have no other. We have always been willing to share...but we will NOT be made into Canadian citizens only, severed from our position as aboriginal peoples.

I see your viewpoint. I really do. Most people I speak to don't. It's an uphill battle you're fighting.

Godspeed Neesika.

Ack, sorry for going off on you, Terrorist Cakes. I was in a fiesty mood, but it doesn't excuse it.

Y'know, I'd started writing a post much like your previous one, Neesika (minus the stuff about your sense of Homeland, as it was from my POV, not yours)- but it got wiped when I timed out and I couldn't be bothered re-penning it. Anyway, thanks for staying within the range of my mental radar and expressing a few things that needed saying...

Not really...it's not like the entire bulk of the law must be explained...there are usually only a few charges, and a few important terms to deal with.
Just the concept of reasonableness could take hours, I think. As I've said, I still find the legal definition a bit sketchy, and I've been asking for enlightenment for some time.
Because you are trying to say a decision is wrong because you think that the only thing that matters is a statute. What I want from you, is for you to have even a basic background of law.
And what I want from you is recognition that the law isn't always clear. If it ever contradicts itself, it becomes unknowable, and that's a problem.
You just don't have the background to comment in anything but a philosophical (and frankly useless for the purposes of this discussion) way.
We were doing fine until you started complaining about this. I was mostly just asking questions.
And yet, because you do not understand the law, you THINK you understand the dissent. You don't. Sorry.
The dissent was pretty clear. The dissert pointed out that the statutory standing of both Elmer's inheritance and Elmer's crime did not allow for this decision, and by preventing him from inheriting his money they were retroactively adding puniishment to his crime. This is exactly the same priniciple I'm supporting.
Sure. You can't get it wrong when you've already made something up and declared it to be true.:eek:
Welcome to axiomatic systems. Are you going to argue that math isn't useful in the world, now?

holy shit,didnt we get over this already?

Welcome to axiomatic systems. Are you going to argue that math isn't useful in the world, now?
Just to chime in here, certain axioms are undeniably true, and not merely arbitrary. For instance, it is axiomatic that humans act. In denying it, you act. Therefore, it is an axiom.