Toxic Multiculturalism

[garbon]

Stop spamming. Thanks.

[Jaron]

Fuck you, house boy.

[garbon]

Fuck you, house boy.

I don't do poors.

[crazy canuck]

What makes you think they no longer exist?

Because the treaties were signed more than a lifetime ago (as I understand it; it may be that some of the treaties were signed during the lifetime of people in those bands/tribes/nations today, and I just don't know of them).

You said "to a group of people who no longer exist".  Just because Treaties were signed with a different generation doesnt mean the group with whom the treaty was signed no longer exists.

[grumbler]

You said "to a group of people who no longer exist".  Just because Treaties were signed with a different generation doesnt mean the group with whom the treaty was signed no longer exists.

The people are whom I am talking about - if I had meant the group didn't exist, I would have said "which no longer exists."  I make the distinction because the members of the group have "rights" which no other Canadian has, according to Jacob.  When the treaties were signed, this wasn't seen as any big deal, because everyone knew whether a given person was an Algonquin.  Nowadays that is no longer true, so you have people in the tribes handing out rights according to their own definitions of membership, and Jacob is all right with this (I think).

Kinda like the "who is a Jew" question we had from that legal case in Britain, except that nearly everyone but me has switched sides from that case! 

[Jaron]

Because you are the only one determined to be a damn fool all the time.

[Jacob]

The people are whom I am talking about - if I had meant the group didn't exist, I would have said "which no longer exists."  I make the distinction because the members of the group have "rights" which no other Canadian has, according to Jacob.  When the treaties were signed, this wasn't seen as any big deal, because everyone knew whether a given person was an Algonquin.  Nowadays that is no longer true, so you have people in the tribes handing out rights according to their own definitions of membership, and Jacob is all right with this (I think).

I can't quite follow what you're saying, unfortunately.

[crazy canuck]

The people are whom I am talking about - if I had meant the group didn't exist, I would have said "which no longer exists."  I make the distinction because the members of the group have "rights" which no other Canadian has, according to Jacob.  When the treaties were signed, this wasn't seen as any big deal, because everyone knew whether a given person was an Algonquin.  Nowadays that is no longer true, so you have people in the tribes handing out rights according to their own definitions of membership, and Jacob is all right with this (I think).

What group of people are you referring to then that dont now exist?

Are you contenting that because the individual who signed the treaty is no longer alive that the treaty is no longer valid?  If not then what are you saying? 

Also, you are quite incorrect in thinking that treaties were made because it was easy to identify that a given person was an Algonquin, as an example.  The British couldnt care less whether they could identify if a person was a part of a given group or not. The only concern was coming to an agreement with the group known as Algonquin etc.

Even the Indian Act does not purport to decide whether a person is a part of a particular Native group. The Act seeks to define if someone is an Indian who is entitled to government benefits.   Someone can be a non status Indian under the Act and still be accepted by a particlar Band as part of that community.  Just because the Federal law doesnt make sense doesnt mean the Natives have to be equally absurd.

[Martinus]

Native treaties are sui generis - that is they are unlike any other thing.

In some aspects First Nations are held to have limited sovereignty - and they are called Nations, not Tribes or Bands or other terminology.

They can't be sui generis in international law because the international community does not recognize them as such. Same with the "limited sovereignty" of the "First Nations" - the international community does not recognize them as sovereigns, does not send ambassadors to them etc.

To use a psychological analogy, their status is a purely Canadian delusion - everybody else treats Canada as a single person.

[Grey Fox]

Well, yeah.

[Martinus]

the mistake both you and Marti (God I never thought I would be putting those words together) are making is the assumption that the parties with whom the Treaties were made no longer have sovereign rights. 

The mistake you and BB are making (I am not counting Jacob since he is not a lawyer) is that you are confusing sovereignty with delegation of powers within a state.

[Neil]

They aren't real nations, because they aren't represented at the United Nations.

[Neil]

the mistake both you and Marti (God I never thought I would be putting those words together) are making is the assumption that the parties with whom the Treaties were made no longer have sovereign rights. 

The mistake you and BB are making (I am not counting Jacob since he is not a lawyer) is that you are confusing sovereignty with delegation of powers within a state.

You are not a lawyer either.

At any rate, what would happen if the natives tried to secede?  That would never happen, due to their addiction to the money they steal from productive Canadians, but still.

[crazy canuck]

the mistake both you and Marti (God I never thought I would be putting those words together) are making is the assumption that the parties with whom the Treaties were made no longer have sovereign rights. 

The mistake you and BB are making (I am not counting Jacob since he is not a lawyer) is that you are confusing sovereignty with delegation of powers within a state.

Really?  How am I doing that?  Who is doing the delegating?  The people who made the treaty?  Do you see the problem with your statement?

[grumbler]

What group of people are you referring to then that dont now exist?

Are you contenting that because the individual who signed the treaty is no longer alive that the treaty is no longer valid?  If not then what are you saying?   

Never mind.  If I cannot explain it, I cannot explain it.

Also, you are quite incorrect in thinking that treaties were made because it was easy to identify that a given person was an Algonquin, as an example.  The British couldnt care less whether they could identify if a person was a part of a given group or not. The only concern was coming to an agreement with the group known as Algonquin etc.

But that was then...

Even the Indian Act does not purport to decide whether a person is a part of a particular Native group. The Act seeks to define if someone is an Indian who is entitled to government benefits.   Someone can be a non status Indian under the Act and still be accepted by a particlar Band as part of that community.  Just because the Federal law doesnt make sense doesnt mean the Natives have to be equally absurd.

Jacob was arguing that the group itself determined its composition.  If federal law does that, then the group's definition of who belongs to it is moot, and I have no problems with them having extra rights.

As far as rights to vote in tribal elections, how does that work?  Does the tribal leadership define who gets to vote in the elections for tribal leadership?  Or is that defined by federal law as well?  Or do you even know?