Toxic Multiculturalism

[crazy canuck]

I don't think Nunavut is a bad example at all, as it is a location where we have taken a new approach, and some modest dividends have shown themselves.

But you used it as an example to refute my statement that things are getting worse for natives under the Indian Act when it is really an example of how things can improve if we get rid of paternalistic systems.

Fair enough, but do you have an example of a reserve/community where things have demonstrably gotten worse in terms of overall 'results' over the last 20 years?  Looking at things such as alcoholism, crime, employment, health/lifespan, education rates?

I think your assessment that things are getting worse is wrong, and that instead things have been marginally improving.

I will try to find something.  I recall a recent report regarding health outcomes and alcoholism. 

[crazy canuck]

I just read the case BB.  Interesting question.  It is a bit unsettling to think that the duty to consult continues after a final agreement.  The whole reason for having these things is to bring certainty around land use issues.  The Court neatly dealt with that by stressing the low threshold in this case - which was essentially following the treaty.

Please let me know when the SCC decision comes down. 

[Oexmelin]

And I agree with all that, but I fail to see how what you describe is by essence recent, or how it was intended to break away from earlier policies, as per Malthus' reading.

Not sure I understand.  The Indian act has always been the problem.  First as the tool by which the Natives were to be assimilated and then the tool by which they were to be "saved".  The only thing that really changed was the stated reason for having the Act.

Basically, I am saying the same thing as BB, but I think we are labouring under a much too vague chronology.

The Indian Act was meant as a ways to assimilate Indians and take care of them as minors during the time the assimilation process took place. What changed in the course of the early 20th c. was the rationale behind acts which had been made for centuries (i.e., giving food to Natives, once a sign of the treaties signed, of trade, of military alliance, now assisting).

What were the recent changes, I asked Malthus, that gave such bad results ? For me, recent changes, as indicated by BB, are no more than 30 years or so - and during those 30 years, I don't think anyone in the Indian Affairs department laboured under the illusion that the Indian Act was a good thing; likewise, most acts that Malthus seem to associate with paternalistic tendencies are not recent at all, but rather continuation of what had been set in the Indian Act.

As mentionned, changes in the Indian Act are complicated affairs, especially as the political climate has changed. Over the years, as people had a hrd time coming up with replacement policies, only the grossest archaism were repealed, for lack of better project: the right to vote, the end of alcohol ban (some archaisms remains: IIRC Natives are not supposed to buy or sell grain). Trudeau had wanted to repeal the Indian Act in 1969 (Jean Chrétien was the one in charge...), in exactly the way Jacob described: an abolition of the Indian status "for their own good". The government was taken aback by the reaction, which was again what Jacob had described: better the horrible Indian Act, that does recognize us as Indians, than no Indian status or identity at all. The project was dropped in 1973, IIRC.

So, since then, policy has tried to change - though never really, IMHO, aqlong the blantantly paternalistic lines Malthus seem to ascribe to recent projects. Which is why I wanted him to give examples of recent policies that enhance the paternalistic tendencies or which purposefully builds upon the Indian Act.

[Warspite]

So what do you call it when someone starts a troll thread, and it evolves into a meaningful discussion?

A reverse-hijacking?
A police action?

English Civil War hijack?

[Sophie Scholl]

So what do you call it when someone starts a troll thread, and it evolves into a meaningful discussion?

A reverse-hijacking?
A police action?

The troll left?  This is interesting reading the past few pages though.

[Neil]

Alberta refused to allow dumb Hutterites to get driver's licenses without photos, as we refused to accept their argument that the demon-flashes steal their souls.

[Barrister]

I just read the case BB.  Interesting question.  It is a bit unsettling to think that the duty to consult continues after a final agreement.  The whole reason for having these things is to bring certainty around land use issues.  The Court neatly dealt with that by stressing the low threshold in this case - which was essentially following the treaty.

Please let me know when the SCC decision comes down.

You should keep the case in mind - remember our Court of Appeal is your Court of Appeal...

And yes, that 'unsettling' feeling is exactly why the appeal was filed in no time at all.

[Razgovory]

So what do you call it when someone starts a troll thread, and it evolves into a meaningful discussion?

A reverse-hijacking?
A police action?

You canuked up our thread!

[crazy canuck]

You should keep the case in mind - remember our Court of Appeal is your Court of Appeal...

Indeed.  Kirkpatrick is one of my favourite Judges.

[Grallon]

So what do you call it when someone starts a troll thread, and it evolves into a meaningful discussion?

...

I think you are all underestimating the power a call for protecting the collective identity of a people can have.  *wry grin*

That incident isn't the first and wont be the last.  It's only a matter of time before there's a reaction.  And the longer it takes the more brutal that reaction will be. 




G.

[Barrister]

You should keep the case in mind - remember our Court of Appeal is your Court of Appeal...

Indeed.  Kirkpatrick is one of my favourite Judges.

Frankel is mine.

Based on my one, five minute appearance in front of him...   

[crazy canuck]

Frankel is mine.

Based on my one, five minute appearance in front of him...   

I think I have told you about my experience opposite Frankel in the Appellate Court.

If not, I will briefly say, this was a case we thought we had in the bag based on what had gone before and the way the Factums were drafted (Frankel was not involved at that point).  He had a good opening - essentially ignoring the Factum which did not contain his best argument and he did a good job ingnoring that fact and getting the Court to ignore it as well.  Our Reply went well and I felt good.  Then he stood up in rebuttle and I could feel the earth open up to swallow my case with every word he uttered.  Simply brilliant advocacy.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

You'd think there might be some sort of middle ground that could be reached on these kinds of issues. But that's not how things are done on the internets.

The burkha issue is a complex one and not entirely straightforward to resolve.  It involves questions about coercion and true consent and about the balancing different values within the public sphere.

However when one side advances the "moon god death cult slave collar bitch" argument, it kind of pushes one to the opposite side of the discussion.

my personal view is that if someone wants to dress like that (or feels they have to I guess is the case here) they should also as a simple common courtesy find no problem showing their face to authority figures like the police, etc. But maybe that infringes on religious freedom? I don't see how, but maybe i'm willfully ignorant on this issue. I tolerate religious silliness, but common sense needs to prevail once in a while.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

reading further, I see this is no longer about clothing, per se. :p (other than all the strawmen descriptions)

The tendency to lump all members of an ethnic/cultural group together as one entity is the biggest problem in trying to create legislated ways of dealing (or even to discuss those cultures in generalities) with a multicultural place like Canada.

It's not just first nations people who sometimes are overdependent on the system, there's a whole rainbow of poorer people, and rich people alike (middle class is busy paying more than their share imo) of any cultural grouping in Canada.

I'm not "off the cuff persuasive" enough to argue these points.

I'll ask a vaguely related to the bulk of the thread question though... Beeb & CC what's the legal angle( as in: do people want to get status to be more in touch with their ancestry and culture, or is it a tax loophole on this expansion?) of who gets first nations status? The news bits I've seen have just confused me. I thought the people they are now including had already been able to get status. It seems pretty harsh that they didn't.

[crazy canuck]

I'll ask a vaguely related to the bulk of the thread question though... Beeb & CC what's the legal angle( as in: do people want to get status to be more in touch with their ancestry and culture, or is it a tax loophole on this expansion?) of who gets first nations status? The news bits I've seen have just confused me. I thought the people they are now including had already been able to get status. It seems pretty harsh that they didn't.

I think that poeple want to become a status "Indian" so that they can obtain the financial benefits under the Act.  Most first nations people I know would never suggest that their culture flows from recognition under the Act.

The expansion of status Indians comes from the fact that the definition in the Act excludes the children of status Women who marry non status men - but not the reverse.  The problem is being fixed.  On its face a laudable thing to do but may well trap future generations in welfare dependancy if you accept that the Act is one of the core problems facing First Nations.

No one knows what the cost of this expansion will be since no one actually knows how many people will gain status because of this move.

Defining status turns out to be a very tricky thing since a lot of people you would probably consider to be "
caucasion" can trace some native blood in their family tree.