Toxic Multiculturalism

[Grallon]

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

Ah!  Far too may of the 'nations' repesented at the UN aren't nations.  And yet real ones aren't..



G.

[Jaron]

Many people today are caught in a horrible whirlwind that started in times past. The crimes of white people of yesteryear is cascading onto the native peoples of today. Individuals may pull out of it. I am sure some native people go on to become successful but as a whole, as a group they do not stand a chance right now. I think Neil said it best in that their only hope is to be mass dispersed so that this culture of defeatism and state support can die off.

[crazy canuck]

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?

That is a very tricky issue and the answer depends on what is being voted on.  The Indian Act covers Band elections but that only really deals with the question of the government on reserve.  More and more the critical decisions are how bands deal with issues regarding land they claim outside the reserves.

As an example of the problem you have identified, when the Nisga'a were voting to ratify their treaty with Canada and B.C. there was a faction within the Nisga'a which launched a court challenge arguing that the group who negotiated the terms of the treaty on behalf of the Nisga'a (which involved large tracts of land not located within reserves) did not represent the Nisga'a and so they sought a declaration that the treaty was invalid and could not be ratified by the Nisga'a people.

The Court threw out the challenge on the basis that the Leaders who negotiated the Treaty were both traditional leaders and elected band leaders under the Indian Act.  But the case illustrates the problem of determining who represents each particular group and how that is decided.

[crazy canuck]

They can't be sui generis in international law because the international community does not recognize them as such.

Boy, I sure wish someone would tell the Supreme Court of Canada that.  I wish they were as smart as you.

[Neil]

Ah!  Far too may of the 'nations' repesented at the UN aren't nations.  And yet real ones aren't..

I can't think of a single nation that isn't in the UN.

[Jacob]

I can't think of a single nation that isn't in the UN.

Would you rate Taiwan or Tibet as real nations?

[Neil]

I can't think of a single nation that isn't in the UN.

Would you rate Taiwan or Tibet as real nations?

No.  Taiwan is the home of the legitimate Chinese government in exile.  Tibet is a medieval fiefdom in the process of being exterminated by the Chinese.

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

I'm pretty sure Canada is a federal entity--so some of the sub-entities of Canada would hold some portions of actual sovereignty. It's a pretty common setup, with powers delegated upward, not downward.

[Barrister]

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.

You are completely mistaken.  Somewhat understandable though as a Poland has no indigenous people.

Google the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.

Take a look at some of the provisions, like:

Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Article 6
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

Clearly the international community does in fact the unique position of indigenous nations.

[Barrister]

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.

"delegation" of powers is the wrong word, since the different levels of government (federal, provincial, and aboriginal) are not 'delegated', but exist as a right.  As an example, the powers of the province of Quebec are not delegated powers from the federal government, but exist by right.  And are referred to as such - the Crown in Right of Quebec.

[The Minsky Moment]

Clearly the international community does in fact the unique position of indigenous nations.

But not as sovereigns.

[Barrister]

Clearly the international community does in fact the unique position of indigenous nations.

But not as sovereigns.

I dunno - doesn't self-government, self-determination, nationality, etc. imply elements of sovereignty?

No one is saying that the Teslin T'lingit First Nation (to pick an example) should get membership in the UN. 

It's sui generis, unique.

[The Minsky Moment]

I can't think of a single nation that isn't in the UN.

Would you rate Taiwan or Tibet as real nations?

As independent sovereign nations?

Tibet no.  And the generally accepted leader of that community neither asserts nor seeks that status.

Taiwan de facto is yes but for political reasons has intentionally chosen not to seek recognition for that status, instead clinging to the legal fiction of legitimate Chinese sovereignty. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Clearly the international community does in fact the unique position of indigenous nations.

But not as sovereigns.

I dunno - doesn't self-government, self-determination, nationality, etc. imply elements of sovereignty?

The Convention only talks about self-government with respect to "internal and local affairs". It is deliberately excluding sovereign status. Otherwise it would never have seen the light of day.

[Neil]

Somewhat understandable though as a Poland has no indigenous people.

... left.