Languish.org

Here's another exemple of the deleterious effects of Canada's multiculturalism.  It was reported a couple of weeks ago that a niqab wearing egyptian woman was expelled from a Montreal college after refusing to attend classes without her niqab http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/niqab-wearing-woman-kicked-out-of-quebec-class-again/article1495112/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/niqab-wearing-woman-kicked-out-of-quebec-class-again/article1495112/).  As the article states she was expelled a second time after attending another institution and refusing again to take off her niqab.

However what the Globe doesn't report is that her first expulsion followed months - months - of attempts to placate her (from march 2009 to november 2009) by the college's authorities.  She was intransigent; to the point where she demanded the men attending the french classes do not look at her!

Here's a juicy quote:

QuoteSeveral commentators as well as certain Muslim groups expressed support for the Quebec's government's position last week.

They argued Naema had been unreasonable in her demands, which reportedly included giving oral presentations with her back facing the co-ed class.

"She's devastated," Mr. Majzoub said. "This woman was insisting on being part of Quebec society, on integrating."

If the bitch wants to integrate she can start by taking off her 'slave collar'.  <_<

-----

Yesterday the Globe followed with a piece of opinion entitled "Intolerant intrusion"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/intolerant-intrusion/article1497006/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/intolerant-intrusion/article1497006/)  - in which, in typically canadian manner, that is to say pretentious and condescending whenever Quebec is the topic, they said:

QuoteMore troubling is the involvement of Quebec politicians and bureaucrats. At one point, after a teacher at the school spotted her, provincial officials were alerted; a civil servant and an Arabic translator descended on the school. Ms. Ahmed said that when she saw the Quebec official, she started to cry: "I feel like the government is following me everywhere." It may be practiced in some Arab and west Asian countries, such as the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but empowering state agents to enforce dress codes and bar the education of women is hitherto unknown in Canada.

Notice how the Quebec government attempting to have Quebec's laws upheld is obliquely compared to murderous talibans... 

Now if canadians want to wallow in multiculturalism like pigs in their shit - good for them.  Here in Quebec however we attempt to maintain standards of civilization that do not involve regressing towards Third World barbarism.




G.

Hmm, I've an Iranian friend trying to emigrate to Quebec.
If they let these types in he should have no bother.

Can I go to Quebec? :)

Hey Grallon, if some hot dude you wanted to have sex with wanted your to wear a niqab, would you do it?

She shouldn't have moved to PQ.  Quebec is about the least multicultural place in Canada (Unilingual? welcome to the 1880's)
[/angloCanuck Troll] :p

This is a case of a stupid person, making silly demands, not a culture clash! Standing with your back to the class to give a report while wearing a niqab yet? :bleeding:

If your sky god makes you do such stupid things, you deserve all the online mockery you receive.

How cute. The dirty Quebecois think they're not part of the third world.  :lmfao:

Civilized nations speak English exclusively.

While I tend to agree that multiculturalism is a load of hooey, I'm not sure how this example shows that it is "toxic". The woman's demands sprang from her own monoculture, and the school administrators decided against her.

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 12:56:12 PM
Now if canadians want to wallow in multiculturalism like pigs in their shit - good for them. 

Apparently they do since they have ceased trying to crack down on those pesky francophones in Quebec.

The irony here is so thick you could export it in bulk to the Chinese to make steely..

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2010, 03:14:12 PM
Apparently they do since they have ceased trying to crack down on those pesky francophones in Quebec.

The irony here is so thick you could export it in bulk to the Chinese to make steely..

...dan?

yesterday a study was realeased here in support of a ban on islamic headdresses in schools (and state-institutions) on the principle that people wearing these things, and demanding to be allowed to wear them, are in breach of what the author calles the principle of "pacification through secularisation".
Which is basically the same as "keep your fairytales indoors or otherwise inconspicuous if you want us to tolerate them". Other religions have ceased their ostentations displays of faith to the betterment of society, its up to muslims to to do the same.
It's a shame the paper is only available in Dutch though

What about yarmulkes?  Oh, wait, you Euros already solved your problem with those people.

Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2010, 01:04:27 PM
Can I go to Quebec? :)

Germans used to go to Latin America and Quebec is part of it, in a way so kein problem!

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on March 12, 2010, 04:12:04 PM
What about yarmulkes?  Oh, wait, you Euros already solved your problem with those people.

With consderable finality. :yes:

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 12, 2010, 03:47:46 PM
yesterday a study was realeased here in support of a ban on islamic headdresses in schools (and state-institutions) on the principle that people wearing these things, and demanding to be allowed to wear them, are in breach of what the author calles the principle of "pacification through secularisation".
Which is basically the same as "keep your fairytales indoors or otherwise inconspicuous if you want us to tolerate them". Other religions have ceased their ostentations displays of faith to the betterment of society, its up to muslims to to do the same.
It's a shame the paper is only available in Dutch though

This logic is completely backwards.  If Dutch people get so incensed at the sight of a hajib they want to beat up the wearer, that's a problem of the Dutch people, not the Moslems.

And keeping fairytales indoors does not address the problem of domestic oppression of women, which is one of the stronger arguments in favor of regulating Muslim practices in Europe

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2010, 04:31:18 PM
And keeping fairytales indoors does not address the problem of domestic oppression of women, which is one of the stronger arguments in favor of regulating Muslim practices in Europe

Occidental women can be beated/abused by their husbands too.

However, if you let the women wear the complete veil out there, that culture of domestic oppression will keep on growing.  A muslim woman going outside the doors of her house with the veil is shutting herself of the new society.  And everything she lives seems normal, and her daughter(s) are raised the same way.

Without the veil, there is a whole new world.  She talks to other people, she sees other women, her daughter(s) grow up in that kind of world and they became less tolerant of controlling freak, at least, no more than normal occidental women.  Of course, there's always the possibility of honor crimes as we have seem twice in the past 2 years.  But, I think it's better if the veil is out when in public places.

Besides, I'd hate to be served by a barmaid that looks like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.instablogsimages.com%2Fimages%2F2007%2F12%2F24%2Fveiled-muslim-women_7333.jpg&hash=d121c021d9de74d9047c450ea5e5eb7e211766c2)

No offense veep, but it sounds like you just made that up.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2010, 04:31:18 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 12, 2010, 03:47:46 PM
yesterday a study was realeased here in support of a ban on islamic headdresses in schools (and state-institutions) on the principle that people wearing these things, and demanding to be allowed to wear them, are in breach of what the author calles the principle of "pacification through secularisation".
Which is basically the same as "keep your fairytales indoors or otherwise inconspicuous if you want us to tolerate them". Other religions have ceased their ostentations displays of faith to the betterment of society, its up to muslims to to do the same.
It's a shame the paper is only available in Dutch though

This logic is completely backwards. If Dutch people get so incensed at the sight of a hajib they want to beat up the wearer, that's a problem of the Dutch people, not the Moslems

the author warns for people using this argument... the term he uses to describe them can be translated as 'ignorant about the issue at hand' iirc.
Basically it's still the problem of the moslims (in this case) as they're the ones that are upsetting the achieved balance by refusing to adapt to it. No-one is against muslims doing their worshippy things, as long as they do it quietly and without too much ostentatious - even exhibitionistic- behaviour. This is because the balance of the society in which they live frowns on such behaviour and considers it disruptive (and rightly so).
We're talkinga bout Belgium btw, but the situation can probably be used for a few other places too. Not sure if to what extent Quebec can be compared but it seems there's signficant overlap:  a form of social peace bought with the fast secularisation of public society.

http://www.standaard.be/extra/pdf/vermeersch.pdf
this is the link to the study. It's 32 pages, run it though some translator and hope it's good enough to read.

Disruptive how?  If some raghead starts wailing on a microphone at 5 in the morning that disrupts the hell out of my sleep.  If some raghead stabs a filmmaker or bombs a cartoonist that disrupts the fuck out of their lives and my sense of security.  But how does some chick wearing a veil disrupt anything?

There's always the problems of law enforcement with this kind of headgear.  If a new citizen really wants to "integrate," then they're agreeing to abide by the laws and law enforcement of their new country.  You can't enforce laws if you can't identify the citizens; blocking faces is just a no-no on so many levels.  Witnesses can't give descriptions other than height, build, and eye color.  Photo identification is useless.

On the other hand, it's counter-productive to them as victims of domestic abuse, as well.  Hubby broke her jaw with a right hook?  Can't see it.  Crushed nose?  Can't see it.  You might be able to spot a black eye, but only if she doesn't have some talent with concealer.

Personally, I'm straddling the line.  They should be allowed to wear it as far as it makes them feel more comfortable, but they should be prepared to remove the headgear at any time, when asked by anyone in a position of authority.  This includes administrators enforcing dress codes, law enforcement officials asking for a clear look at the person they're interviewing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2010, 05:16:02 PM
No offense veep, but it sounds like you just made that up.

My argument would be along the same lines.  Having women walking around in body socks would put pressure on other women of the same culture in the same vicinity to do likewise, giving the controlling men the cover to demand the same thing.  That would serve to lock the women into their own culture that deprives them of equality instead of allowing them to assimilate.  Banning those head socks would make the dynamic go the other way, the laws would give cover to women to not wear them, without becoming an honor killing victim.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2010, 05:32:13 PM
But how does some chick wearing a veil disrupt anything?

It's offensive to people valuing gender equality.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2010, 03:14:12 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 12:56:12 PM
Now if canadians want to wallow in multiculturalism like pigs in their shit - good for them. 

Apparently they do since they have ceased trying to crack down on those pesky francophones in Quebec.

You seem to have bought the fantasy that Canada is a unitary country and quebecers are a minority within it.  You should disabuse yourself of that notion.  Canada is a multi-national federation where  Quebec is the homeland of one of the founding nations.  We predate Canada.  In fact we *were* Canada before there were any anglos here.

Anyhow the toxicity of multiculturalism refers to the insidious nature of the 'canadian brand' of it - which was specifically designed and articulated to negate Quebec's collective identity and the nationalism that proceeds from it.  You however can be excused for being ignorant of the history and context.  You can refer to this article published by the federal Library of Parliement: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/936-e.htm (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/936-e.htm).

I suggest you consider what follows carefully:

QuoteQuebeckers have expressed uneasiness about, or even resistance to, federal multiculturalism policy since its inception.  This uneasiness is largely explained in terms of their perception of it as another intrusion by federal authorities into their state's internal affairs.  Many are inclined to view multiculturalism as a ploy to downgrade the distinct society status of Quebeckers to the level of an ethnic minority culture under the domination of English-speaking Canada.  Multiculturalism is thus seen as an attempt to dilute the French fact in Canada, weakening francophone status and threatening the dual partnership of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.  For many Quebeckers, the idea of reducing the rights of French-speaking Canadians to the same level as those of other ethno-racial minorities in the name of multicultural equality is inconsistent with the special compact between the two founding peoples of Canada.

This has become more and more aggressive since the 1995 referendum about Quebec's independance.  The editorial piece I quoted earlier serves to illustrate the attitude prevalent among too many of our neighboors.  Anything designed to protect Quebec's heritage is labelled as 'tribalism' or 'racism' or 'crypto-fascism'.  And it cofirms what I've long held to be true: canadians' identity hinges on the denial of our collective existance;  quebecers cannot be a people since they're only a minority among others...  You see the circular logic don't you?




G.

What if it is the woman's choice to live that way? Many seem to be under the impression these woman need rescuing, but when given a glimpse of "freedom" many choose to honor their traditions and values instead.


It is no different than a western woman who forgoes the workplace to be a happy housewife and stay at home mom. It equally defeats the progress of women in the 20th century: equality to men and ability to break the glass ceiling and head up in the workplace. We respect it though because it is their choice. That is the critical part of things, not this nonsense the rest of you keep bringing up.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 12, 2010, 05:22:47 PM

We're talking about Belgium btw, but the situation can probably be used for a few other places too. Not sure if to what extent Quebec can be compared but it seems there's signficant overlap:  a form of social peace bought with the fast secularisation of public society.

Precisely.  Quebecers turned their back on the Catholic Church in the 1960s - after centuries of meddling from Church authorities into the affairs of private citizens.  Here, this niqab business raises the ghosts of those days - when State and Church were locked into an incestuous relationship - and when women were subordinated to men by tradition.  And when the canadian doctrine of multiculturalism insists that resisting such intrusions is wrong, then it becomes intolerable.  For me anyway. 



G.

So once again, it's Quebecois people demanding everyone bow down to their will?  You basically admitted it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with stroking your egos and demanding everyone respect your people while giving no respect in return.  Silly.

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 05:51:06 PM
You seem to have bought the fantasy that Canada is a unitary country and quebecers are a minority within it.  You should disabuse yourself of that notion.  Canada is a multi-national federation where  Quebec is the homeland of one of the founding nations. 

Right. It is a multicultural country.

QuoteAnyhow the toxicity of multiculturalism refers to the insidious nature of the 'canadian brand' of it - which was specifically designed and articulated to negate Quebec's collective identity and the nationalism that proceeds from it.   . . .

QuoteQuebeckers have expressed uneasiness about, or even resistance to, federal multiculturalism policy since its inception.  This uneasiness is largely explained in terms of their perception of it as another intrusion by federal authorities into their state's internal affairs.  Many are inclined to view multiculturalism as a ploy to downgrade the distinct society status of Quebeckers to the level of an ethnic minority culture under the domination of English-speaking Canada.  Multiculturalism is thus seen as an attempt to dilute the French fact in Canada, weakening francophone status and threatening the dual partnership of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.  For many Quebeckers, the idea of reducing the rights of French-speaking Canadians to the same level as those of other ethno-racial minorities in the name of multicultural equality is inconsistent with the special compact between the two founding peoples of Canada.

That is very clear, and something of which I was not ignortant of: namely that some francophone Quebeckers like multiculturalism when it redounds their benefit and enhances their cultural power and authority; they don't like it when it gives any recognition, respect to other communities or cultures in Canada. 

It is not that surprising to see portions of a particular community in a polity desiring a privileged position and the subordination of others.  What I still haven't seen is any plausible philosophical or moral justification for such a stance.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on March 12, 2010, 06:15:11 PM
So once again, it's Quebecois people demanding everyone bow down to their will?  You basically admitted it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with stroking your egos and demanding everyone respect your people while giving no respect in return.  Silly.

What are you taklking about?!


How would you react to guests in your house starting to demand that *you* change *your* hoursehold's habits to accomodate theirs?  I suspect you'd tell them to stuff it or get out!  Unfortunately here we're still too polite to show them the door...  <_<





G.

Like Jaron said DGuller; where is your evidence for the claim that hijab wearers are all yearning to be freed from the tyranny of the tent?  I have heard interviews with women who have made the decision to ditch the veil and emancipate themselves.  I have heard interviews with women who wear the veil and claim it is an expression of their own beliefs.  I have not heard a single interview with a woman who said she would love to take it off if only the law would give her the excuse.

Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2010, 05:09:01 PM

However, if you let the women wear the complete veil out there, that culture of domestic oppression will keep on growing.  A muslim woman going outside the doors of her house with the veil is shutting herself of the new society.  And everything she lives seems normal, and her daughter(s) are raised the same way.

Without the veil, there is a whole new world.  She talks to other people, she sees other women, her daughter(s) grow up in that kind of world and they became less tolerant of controlling freak, at least, no more than normal occidental women.  Of course, there's always the possibility of honor crimes as we have seem twice in the past 2 years.  But, I think it's better if the veil is out when in public places.

It seems to me that if Muslim women seeing other women not wearing veils is a good thing, then it makes little sense to throw a veil-wearing Muslim woman out of college, where she is definately going to see other women not wearing veils.  And of course, by denying her a college education, you make it harder for her to have a career outside the home, making it easier for her male relatives to control her behaviour.

I don't see a strong argument for banning niqab outside of areas where not allowing masked people is important for security or other reasons. Obviously such areas are very common.

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 06:22:57 PM

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on March 12, 2010, 06:15:11 PM
So once again, it's Quebecois people demanding everyone bow down to their will?  You basically admitted it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with stroking your egos and demanding everyone respect your people while giving no respect in return.  Silly.

What are you taklking about?!


How would you react to guests in your house starting to demand that *you* change *your* hoursehold's habits to accomodate theirs?  I suspect you'd tell them to stuff it or get out!  Unfortunately here we're still too polite to show them the door...  <_<





G.

You mean like providing francophone services in anglophone areas?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2010, 06:20:20 PM

Right. It is a multicultural country.

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

QuoteThat is very clear, and something of which I was not ignortant of: namely that some francophone Quebeckers like multiculturalism when it redounds their benefit and enhances their cultural power and authority; they don't like it when it gives any recognition, respect to other communities or cultures in Canada.

Can you honestly put on the same footing a people of 7+ million with a long standing history of occupying this land with 'communities' of a few thousands or a few 10s of thousands?!

QuoteIt is not that surprising to see portions of a particular community in a polity desiring a privileged position and the subordination of others.  What I still haven't seen is any plausible philosophical or moral justification for such a stance.

There you go again with the unitary equation.  Think of the European Union if it will help you conceptualize what Canada really is.  Outside of Quebec I'd say that most canadians see themselves as most americans do: different from region to region but all citizens of one nation.  Quebecers however see themselves as radically different.  It's very clear for us that we live in one country and our neighboors live in another - even though we're all sharing the same area - again much like french or germans or italians are all europeans; but remain themselves within their own borders.

As for the moral justification of the stance in this particular case (and all others such) I've explained it in my previous post: this society has reached a social equilibrium between modernity and tradition.  Anything that upsets this balance need to be circumscribed.





G.

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 07:08:20 PM

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

Gotta be more than that, since the other provinces have the same legal standing as Quebec, right?

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 07:08:20 PM
How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

:huh: Canada is one weird country.

Your people lost the war before my country even existed Grallon.  It's time for you all to move on.  Also, see Raz and Minsky's points. :bowler:

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 07:08:20 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2010, 06:20:20 PM

Right. It is a multicultural country.

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

QuoteThat is very clear, and something of which I was not ignortant of: namely that some francophone Quebeckers like multiculturalism when it redounds their benefit and enhances their cultural power and authority; they don't like it when it gives any recognition, respect to other communities or cultures in Canada.

Can you honestly put on the same footing a people of 7+ million with a long standing history of occupying this land with 'communities' of a few thousands or a few 10s of thousands?!

So the civil rights that should be accorded to members of a group depend on how many people are in that group? 

QuoteIt is not that surprising to see portions of a particular community in a polity desiring a privileged position and the subordination of others.  What I still haven't seen is any plausible philosophical or moral justification for such a stance.

There you go again with the unitary equation.  Think of the European Union if it will help you conceptualize what Canada really is.  Outside of Quebec I'd say that most canadians see themselves as most americans do: different from region to region but all citizens of one nation.  Quebecers however see themselves as radically different.  It's very clear for us that we live in one country and our neighboors live in another - even though we're all sharing the same area - again much like french or germans or italians are all europeans; but remain themselves within their own borders.

As for the moral justification of the stance in this particular case (and all others such) I've explained it in my previous post: this society has reached a social equilibrium between modernity and tradition.  Anything that upsets this balance need to be circumscribed.[/quote]

A)  I'm sure segregationists in the US south in the 50s and 60s would have agreed with you.

B)  No modern society is static, so the balance is always being upset.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2010, 07:10:15 PM


Gotta be more than that, since the other provinces have the same legal standing as Quebec, right?

Legally?  It's a centralized federation with limited soveraingty subdivisions called provinces (10 + 1 territory called Nunavut).  Sociologically - there's the english part and the french part and the inuit part (although that one is fairly recent).



G.

Quote from: dps on March 12, 2010, 07:21:25 PM

So the civil rights that should be accorded to members of a group depend on how many people are in that group?

Civil rights are accorded to individuals, not collectives... 

Quote
A)  I'm sure segregationists in the US south in the 50s and 60s would have agreed with you.

B)  No modern society is static, so the balance is always being upset.

A) Segregationists?!?  :huh:

B) The balance should alway be determined by the majority - individuals have to fit in a society - not the other way around!  And there can only be one society - not a collection of ... colonies from sub standard cultures.




G.

So if the majority feels they don't like Gays they should just be able to toss them out?  Gays aren't exactly "fitting in".  In fact they have long campaigned that the majority accept them.

I get the feeling you haven't thought this through yet.

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
Legally?  It's a centralized federation with limited soveraingty subdivisions called provinces (10 + 1 territory called Nunavut).  Sociaologically - there's the english part and the french part and the inuit part (although that one is fairly recent).

You're forgetting two places... :angry:

Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2010, 01:42:19 AM

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
Legally?  It's a centralized federation with limited soveraingty subdivisions called provinces (10 + 1 territory called Nunavut).  Sociaologically - there's the english part and the french part and the inuit part (although that one is fairly recent).

You're forgetting two places... :angry:

Java and the Heliopause?

Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2010, 02:56:42 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2010, 01:42:19 AM

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
Legally?  It's a centralized federation with limited soveraingty subdivisions called provinces (10 + 1 territory called Nunavut).  Sociaologically - there's the english part and the french part and the inuit part (although that one is fairly recent).

You're forgetting two places... :angry:

Java and the Heliopause?

:D

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 11:30:08 PM

Quote from: dps on March 12, 2010, 07:21:25 PM

So the civil rights that should be accorded to members of a group depend on how many people are in that group?

Civil rights are accorded to individuals, not collectives... 

Kind of my point

Quote

Quote
A)  I'm sure segregationists in the US south in the 50s and 60s would have agreed with you.

B)  No modern society is static, so the balance is always being upset.

A) Segregationists?!?  :huh:

Do you not know the meaning of the term? 

QuoteB) The balance should alway be determined by the majority - individuals have to fit in a society - not the other way around!  And there can only be one society - not a collection of ... colonies from sub standard cultures.

Lord the iront. 

And so much for majority rule with respect for minority rights.




G.
[/quote]

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 11:30:08 PM
B) The balance should alway be determined by the majority - individuals have to fit in a society - not the other way around!  And there can only be one society - not a collection of ... colonies from sub standard cultures.

Quebec... bend your knee.

Bend your birches.

grallon, the point is Canada is organized the way it is (with large autonomy given to Quebec) exactly because it embraced multiculturalism. It's not like country government or constitution cannot be changed, or that Quebec's autonomy is a god-given right - it only exists because the sovereign (which is the federal government) allows it.

If you rally against multiculturalism, then you must also accept that the current organization of Canada is dysfunctional, and instead it should be replaced with an English protestant monoculture ruled centrally from Ottawa.

Anyway, a gay Quebecois ranting against multiculturalism and saying the minority must conform to the minority wishes or be tossed out is not something you see every day.

Is grallon more stupid or evil? Discuss.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2010, 12:08:16 AM
So if the majority feels they don't like Gays they should just be able to toss them out?  Gays aren't exactly "fitting in".  In fact they have long campaigned that the majority accept them.

I get the feeling you haven't thought this through yet.

When you have Raz smacking you around like this, it's not a good sign. :face:

Anyway, my main problem with allowing people their special religious dress in violation of a dress code applicable to everyone is simple: it creates a situation of a religious exceptionalism. Essentially, it means a person of a given religion has more rights or special rights people of different religions (or no religions) don't have.

The result is that the state (or whatever the authority in a given situation is) ends up as an arbiter of which motives e.g. to deviate from the dress code are "worthy" and which aren't - which I find to be a disturbing situation. For example, if we allow burkhas, we should also allow crossdressing or transgendered students to come in opposite sex clothes, or we should allow people in rasta dreadlocks etc. Which in the end makes any dress code meaningless.

So the bottom line is this: either you have a dress code that is enforced without exceptions or you have no dress code and everybody wears whatever they want. I don't see any sensible middle ground solution that wouldn't mean some people are treated better than others.

Are dreadlocks banned somewhere? :unsure:

Quote from: Jaron on March 13, 2010, 06:19:23 AM
Are dreadlocks banned somewhere? :unsure:

No.  <_<

Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2010, 05:55:48 AM
grallon, the point is Canada is organized the way it is (with large autonomy given to Quebec) exactly because it embraced multiculturalism. It's not like country government or constitution cannot be changed, or that Quebec's autonomy is a god-given right - it only exists because the sovereign (which is the federal government) allows it.

If you rally against multiculturalism, then you must also accept that the current organization of Canada is dysfunctional, and instead it should be replaced with an English protestant monoculture ruled centrally from Ottawa.

This is a very peculiar reading of Canadian history (Canada embraced multiculturalism in 1763 ? in 1774? in 1791? in 1840?). Constitutional changes are at an impasse since at least 20 years, and under its current guise has not been ratified by Quebec.

As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 13, 2010, 07:33:42 AM

This is a very peculiar reading of Canadian history (Canada embraced multiculturalism in 1763 ? in 1774? in 1791? in 1840?). Constitutional changes are at an impasse since at least 20 years, and under its current guise has not been ratified by Quebec.

As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

Martinus is merely demonstrating his usual ignorance.  However I'm afraid you're right about the rest.  Between the ideological blinders some here wear and the posturing of the others this topic always get derailed.  But you have to admit it's extraordinarily annoying to have foreigners presume to tell us who and what we are.



G.

 :lmfao:

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 13, 2010, 07:33:42 AM

Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2010, 05:55:48 AM
grallon, the point is Canada is organized the way it is (with large autonomy given to Quebec) exactly because it embraced multiculturalism. It's not like country government or constitution cannot be changed, or that Quebec's autonomy is a god-given right - it only exists because the sovereign (which is the federal government) allows it.

If you rally against multiculturalism, then you must also accept that the current organization of Canada is dysfunctional, and instead it should be replaced with an English protestant monoculture ruled centrally from Ottawa.

This is a very peculiar reading of Canadian history (Canada embraced multiculturalism in 1763 ? in 1774? in 1791? in 1840?). Constitutional changes are at an impasse since at least 20 years, and under its current guise has not been ratified by Quebec.

As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

The thing is, to an external observer, the Muslim insistence on wearing burkhas is equally quaint, ridiculous and silly as the Quebecois insistence on speaking French in the middle of what is essentially an English-speaker-populated landmass, stretching from the northern border of Mexico to the northern shores of America.

I don't care how many reasons you could come up with to illustrate why your case is exceptional - just as I don't care how many reasons any learned Muslim could come up with why women should be wearing burkhas. Ultimately, this is up to some cultural stuff that is pretty meaningless to anyone outside of the culture. Your explanation in this context is pointless (it is no doubt culturally significant for you, but in the overall court of logic and reason, it has no substance whatsoever) - it doesn't give your arguments or position any more validity than that of a Muslim woman wearing a burkha.

Ultimately, if you want to have any rational policy, build on some sense, rather than an arbitrary fiat, you have to ask if a given custom (e.g. speaking French, wearing burkhas) (1) harms "innocent bystanders", and (2) is excessively harmful to people participating in it. The latter is a tricky case though, because from an absolutely objective perspective, a Canadian speaking English as a first language is much more "sellable" in a labour market, both in Canada and internationally, than a Canadian speaking French as a first language; not to mention administrative etc. costs of running a bilingual state are pretty high; so this 'self-harm' must be rather high for it to disqualify the policy. By that standard, allowing a woman to wear a burkha to school does not seem to be more harmful than allowing a Quebecois parent to decide that his or her child should learn a rather local, useless language as their first language, instead of using English like the civilized rest of the country.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on March 12, 2010, 04:12:04 PM
What about yarmulkes?  Oh, wait, you Euros already solved your problem with those people.

Québec is in Europe now ?   :blink: :lol:

In France, which has the biggest jewish community in Europe, yarmulkes or kippot do not prevent identification so they are not going to be banned anytime soon for adults (or for everyone in Elsass-Mosel ;) )

Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2010, 10:13:09 AM

...snip...

Take the red pill Marty, do!  Or you'll end up as delusional as Raz who keep insisting on taking the blue one. :P




G.

Still haven't answered why Francophone services should be provided in Anglophone areas.

Quote
It is not that surprising to see portions of a particular community in a polity desiring a privileged position and the subordination of others.  What I still haven't seen is any plausible philosophical or moral justification for such a stance.

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to expect that from someone who openly pines for genocide.  That's about as probable from Grallon as an objective discussion of Byzantine History is from me.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2010, 01:24:52 PM
Still haven't answered why Francophone services should be provided in Anglophone areas.

They should not. French should be forced to assimilate into the first world culture of English speaking Canadians.

Quote from: Fate on March 13, 2010, 01:55:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2010, 01:24:52 PM
Still haven't answered why Francophone services should be provided in Anglophone areas.

They should not. French should be forced to assimilate into the first world culture of English speaking Canadians.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwii.ca%2Fphotos%2Fjuno%2Fjuno3.jpg&hash=ad4d2c9cce6bca88066e03ee47dd9975b283c70d)

If at first you don't succeed?

Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2010, 10:13:09 AM
The thing is, to an external observer, the Muslim insistence on wearing burkhas is equally quaint, ridiculous and silly as the Quebecois insistence on speaking French in the middle of what is essentially an English-speaker-populated landmass, stretching from the northern border of Mexico to the northern shores of America.

Just as, I assume, people speaking Polish next to a Russian giant (then or in, say, the late 19th c.), people speaking Italian in a globalized world or businessmen insisting on the respect of human rights in China.

Issues of identity or even of values, I would argue, should not and indeed, are not reducible to economic cost-benefit analysis.

As for what constitutes the court of logic and reason, you will forgive me I hope if I don't rely too much on your authority  for definition.

Quote from: Jaron on March 13, 2010, 06:19:23 AM
Are dreadlocks banned somewhere? :unsure:

Boot camp?

Young dude I met in Jamaica said cutting his dreads was a condition of employment at a hotel there.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2010, 02:50:11 PM
Young dude I met in Jamaica said cutting his dreads was a condition of employment at a hotel there.

A condition imposed by the state, or by the hotel?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 13, 2010, 12:04:45 PM

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on March 12, 2010, 04:12:04 PM
What about yarmulkes?  Oh, wait, you Euros already solved your problem with those people.

Québec is in Europe now ?   :blink: :lol:

I was responding to a Euro poster/article about Europe.  Thanks for trying to help with my geography though. :)

Quote from: Jaron on March 13, 2010, 06:19:23 AM
Are dreadlocks banned somewhere? :unsure:

It's been done in the US (ultimately unsuccessfully) and the UK (successfully).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=5845
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/01/education.schools

Quote from: dps on March 13, 2010, 04:09:55 PM
A condition imposed by the state, or by the hotel?

Door number 2.

Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2010, 10:13:09 AM
The thing is, to an external observer, the Muslim insistence on wearing burkhas is equally quaint, ridiculous and silly as the Quebecois insistence on speaking French in the middle of what is essentially an English-speaker-populated landmass, stretching from the northern border of Mexico to the northern shores of America.

Well I don't about the Muslim 'insistence' on wearing burkhas.  I live in probably the most Arab area of London and spend a lot of time in areas with a large South Asian Muslim community.  I've never seen a woman in a burqa.

Edit:  Hell, I've been to Morocco (which, admittedly, isn't terribly Middle-Eastern/South Asian) for a month in a few cities and I never saw a burqa.

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2010, 06:53:17 PM
I live in probably the most Arab area of London and spend a lot of time in areas with a large South Asian Muslim community.

[grumbler] South African Muslim community? [/grumbler]

I never forget and I never forgive.

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 07:08:20 PM
How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

You can say it all you want and you will be equally wrong each time.  Canada is one country; what you mean to say is that it contains more than one *nation*

I don't know whether this is a linguistic issue or just a failure to understand.

QuoteCan you honestly put on the same footing a people of 7+ million with a long standing history of occupying this land with 'communities' of a few thousands or a few 10s of thousands?!

I can.  It is this concept called equality under the law.

QuoteQuebecers however see themselves as radically different.  It's very clear for us that we live in one country and our neighboors live in another - even though we're all sharing the same area - again much like french or germans or italians are all europeans; but remain themselves within their own borders. 

Putting aside the improper usage of "country" for "nation" I don't see the relevance here.  Being very much a minority in the North American continent (and within Canada itself) one would think that Quebecers would be particularly sensitive to the practice of singling out people based on their identity for prejudicial treatment. 

QuoteAs for the moral justification of the stance in this particular case (and all others such) I've explained it in my previous post: this society has reached a social equilibrium between modernity and tradition.  Anything that upsets this balance need to be circumscribed.

Societies don't reach equlibria because time has a very bad habit of not standing still. 
And *people* are not objects to be circumscribed.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 13, 2010, 07:33:42 AM
As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

When I see claims like:

QuoteIf the bitch wants to integrate she can start by taking off her 'slave collar'.   

adopting a snickering pose and claiming "irony" is a grossly understated approach.
In such a situation, there is no need to "retreat" to the moral highground; the ethical topography as it lies is clear enough.

I understand why Quebeckers expect and demand cultural understanding and sensitivity from others; it should not be too much the ask that those who make such demands abide by that principle themselves.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2010, 12:46:41 PM

I can.  It is this concept called equality under the law.

I see you insist on condusing individual rights with collective rights.  Not much left to discuss then. 

Quote
Societies don't reach equlibria because time has a very bad habit of not standing still. 
And *people* are not objects to be circumscribed.

People's rights can and are circumscribed all the time.  As you said above, it's called 'equality under the law'.  In this case, the law states that no one shall appear masked in a classroom.

As for social concensus, the majority here is in agreement that while individuals are free to practice whatever religion they choose - they are not free to impose those superstition on others.





G.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2010, 12:52:14 PM
adopting a snickering pose and claiming "irony" is a grossly understated approach.
In such a situation, there is no need to "retreat" to the moral highground; the ethical topography as it lies is clear enough.

I understand why Quebeckers expect and demand cultural understanding and sensitivity from others; it should not be too much the ask that those who make such demands abide by that principle themselves.

My point is mostly that there is enough (or should be enough) in Grallon's ideas to supply the matter of his refutation, without bringing in Quebec's peculiar political situation (let's call it nation-without-a-state) - or indeed, a sweeping reading of what Quebec is or is about. I disagree with Grallon on most topics, and that makes neither I nor he self-hating quebeckers. If people want to argue about Quebec's situation, they are free to do so - and as stated I will abstain from participating in the repetition; it is the link between Grallon's stance and what people percieve Quebec's situation is that I disagree with.

This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
My point is mostly that there is enough (or should be enough) in Grallon's ideas to supply the matter of his refutation, without bringing in Quebec's peculiar political situation (let's call it nation-without-a-state) - or indeed, a sweeping reading of what Quebec is or is about.

My reaction is the same as when I see Irish-Americans or American Jews railing against immigration.  The fact the a historic victim of a certain form of oppression becomes a cheerleader of it once they are on top may not affect the underlying equities, but it does stick harder in the craw.

Quoteis latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

That point does seem to come out in many cultural discussions . . .

Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2010, 01:42:19 AM

Quote from: Grallon on March 12, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
Legally?  It's a centralized federation with limited soveraingty subdivisions called provinces (10 + 1 territory called Nunavut).  Sociaologically - there's the english part and the french part and the inuit part (although that one is fairly recent).

You're forgetting two places... :angry:

Far more than 2 actually.

Canada is a big MFin place with many distinct subultures. I like the idea that we are like the EU (in simple many nations with a big overarching cultural bent terms) in the same way that I like being part of a North American union. The US and Mexico to a lesser extent in Canada are important parts of each others existence.)

G. all peoples are conquered peoples. (pretty much.) Northa America is filled with people from all over the world who fled being conquered, (before during and after such conquests)

The francophone "we were here first" line is a strawman of the highest order... the First Nations people were here first, then some hairy frenchies, then the slightly more cleane up Anglos.

My home has had both anglo and franco roots from before PQ and points west was settled by France, or England. We see ourselves variously as either Anglo or Franco Canadian.

We are all living on conquered land (not that there really is anything wrong with that at this point in history, as I said. Wars and changing borders have always happened. Check out some old maps once in awhile.)

You are Canadian G. whether you like it or not, but first and rightly so, a proud Quebecois. Nothing wrong with that. Asking other people who just moved here to figure out and acclimate to our "culture" instantly is as inane as thinking that our cultures haven't changed and evolved or the centuries since they took root in Canada.

In a few generations, people will laugh and scratch their heads at all this petty nonsense (or the Earth will be a burnt out cinder, either way, Hijabs will be a moot point.

The only constant is change.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

In the future there would be little reaction to such a statement.  A school board in Texas is doing its best to make sure that future students will not understand the insult.  Indeed in the future many may wear the badge of anti-intellectual with honour.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2010, 03:54:47 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

In the future there would be little reaction to such a statement.  A school board in Texas is doing its best to make sure that future students will not understand the insult.  Indeed in the future many may wear the badge of anti-intellectual with honour.

The future? I think that's here now, sadly.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 01:19:01 PM
collective rights. 

:bleeding:

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2010, 03:54:47 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

In the future there would be little reaction to such a statement.  A school board in Texas is doing its best to make sure that future students will not understand the insult.  Indeed in the future many may wear the badge of anti-intellectual with honour.

Oh please, don't spare us any hyperbole.  :lmfao:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2010, 04:57:00 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 01:19:01 PM
collective rights. 

:bleeding:

You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2010, 05:38:25 PM


You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?




G.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2010, 05:38:25 PM


You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Because, with all due respect, you are a remarkably poor spokesperson for the concept.  And they are somewhat in conflict with individual rights.

Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2010, 06:12:21 PM


Because, with all due respect, you are a remarkably poor spokesperson for the concept.  And they are somewhat in conflict with individual rights.

Kindly abstain from commenting on the legitimacy of the spokesperson counsel!  Just answer the fucking question will you!? <_<




G.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 07:36:44 PM
Kindly abstain from commenting on the legitimacy of the spokesperson counsel!  Just answer the fucking question will you!? <_<

I did. :mellow:

Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2010, 05:38:25 PM
You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Minority rights are presumably rights that pertain to *individuals* who happen to belong to the protected class, and can be vindicated as such.

Treaties are agreements between sovereigns, and even if we are talking about so-called "dependent" sovereignties, it muddles the issue to refer to one contracting party's obligations under a treaty as a "collective right" of another.  We wouldn't say that Canada has a "collective right" to duty free treatment of goods under NAFTA; we would say that the NAFTA treaty provides for such treatment, and the Canadian government has the power and authority to seek enforcement on behalf of its nationals under the treaty terms.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM
Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Because it is ill-defined, incoherent, and easily adapted as a Trojan Horse for attacking the individual rights of others.  Such as the way it is being used here.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM
Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

G.

Because, unlike the beliefs of Quebec's finest, collective rights do not equal collective obligation.  Should the group have the collective rights to maintain their French-derivative society and language?  Absolutely. 

Should the "rights" of the one group take ultimate precedence in a constantly-changing society?  No. 

Should the state responsible for the welfare of all of its citizens be co-opted to where it becomes little more than a tool of xenophobia?  Hell no.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM
Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

When I see the term I think of benefits that have been assigned to a group and left up to the group how they will be allocated internally.  Which might be allocated fairly or they might not.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 15, 2010, 12:06:37 AM

Because, unlike the beliefs of Quebec's finest, collective rights do not equal collective obligation.  Should the group have the collective rights to maintain their French-derivative society and language?  Absolutely. 

Well I suppose we can always legislate to formalize those rights - and thus avoid the confusion that makes Minsky so anxious. 

Parliements, or in this case the National Assembly, are still soveraigns.  And the federal constitution contains the derogatory clause that can be invoked to suspend the articles of the Charter of Rights.




G.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2010, 05:38:25 PM


You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?




G.

The problem is simple: setting up different classes of person different sets of "rights" created by virtue of the accident of their birth is contrary to generally accepted notions of freedom and equality of citizenship.

Canada has vestiges of this for histioric reasons encoded deep within its legal DNA as it were, which is proving increasingly problematic as time goes on. The worst offender in this category is not the situation of Quebec, but that of the First Nations, where an entirely seperate and distinct category of paternalism and entitlements having to do with native status has, for reasons entirely understandable and perhaps even laudable, helped to preserve a system of almost third-world poverty and deprivation within Canada.

To be clear, that was not the intent, and it is not of course the cause, but it seems to have helped institutionalize this as the status quo. 

The flipside of "collective rights" is of course removing individual rights from disfavoured persons, something that this admittedly annoying woman appears to have triggered.

She can go back to Egypt if she wants to live in a muslim society.

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 08:03:02 AM
Well I suppose we can always legislate to formalize those rights - and thus avoid the confusion that makes Minsky so anxious. 

Parliements, or in this case the National Assembly, are still soveraigns.  And the federal constitution contains the derogatory clause that can be invoked to suspend the articles of the Charter of Rights.

G.

The thing is, if you're going to formalize those rights for your group, you'd better be prepared to formalize an equal set of rights for other groups in your citizenry, or else your constitution is a joke.  As that would make things unnecessarily long and complex, you're better off avoiding the slippery slope of legislating group values entirely.  Look at the insanity that occurs when Republicans try in our country.

And you're not helping your case by threatening suspension of the Charter of Rights.  All it does is affirm the notion that you're only okay with the laws when they further your own particular cause, and that at any other time they can be discarded.  I hope I don't have to point out the obvious parallel to what happened to the French aristocracy in the mid-eighteenth century for that type of mentality... .

The problem is the separatist movement doesn't recognize the fluidity that any thriving given culture has.  If you're truly that worried about watering down the culture, include things that celebrate the French culture, not things that denigrate the "outsiders."  If you want another American example of a group that's avoided becoming irrelevant, consider what holiday we Americans are celebrating on Wednesday.  Without exaggerating, just bringing up St. Patrick as an excuse for getting shitfaced and throwing poorly drawn leprechauns around has done wonders for protecting the cultural identity of not only Irish-Americans, but Americans of Irish descent as well...

Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2010, 09:39:42 AM
She can go back to Egypt if she wants to live in a muslim society.

Works both ways.  If you can't deal with integration, you can get your ass back to Israel, douchebag.

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM
Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Uhum. It is called the Western legal tradition.

In Maoist regimes, OTOH, collective rights have a well-grounded lineage.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2010, 09:58:38 AM
In Maoist regimes, OTOH, collective rights have a well-grounded lineage.

I think they have also been an important factor in the Ottoman Empire.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2010, 09:58:38 AM
In Maoist regimes, OTOH, collective rights have a well-grounded lineage.

What do those rights matter without the right not to get shot on the whim of a party cadre?

Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2010, 09:54:53 AM

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM
Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Uhum. It is called the Western legal tradition.

Quote93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:—

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(

Quote25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 09:28:41 AM
...

The flipside of "collective rights" is of course removing individual rights from disfavoured persons, something that this admittedly annoying woman appears to have triggered.

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.





G.

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

:sigh:

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2010, 10:57:21 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 14, 2010, 06:06:07 PM
Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Because it is ill-defined, incoherent, and easily adapted as a Trojan Horse for attacking the individual rights of others. 

Which is exactly what enshrining aboriginal title and treaty rights in the Charter has done.

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew.  :D

QuoteYou realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

I dunno, we survived all those homosexuals clamoring for marriage just fine.  ;)

QuoteBahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

The other day they released a report that shows that the descendants of "visible minority" immigrants will be a majority in (English) Canada in the reasonably near future. Indeed, they already are in Toronto. So far, no great tensions.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
If people want to argue about Quebec's situation, they are free to do so - and as stated I will abstain from participating in the repetition; it is the link between Grallon's stance and what people percieve Quebec's situation is that I disagree with.

I should have made this point earlier.  I appreciate when you take the time to set out your views.  As you and I have discussed before, it is not often that I get to hear your viewpoint in our media and I find always find it informative and often enlightening.

So, as painful as it is for you to repeat yourself, I do hope you continue to do so.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 12:26:52 PM
Which is exactly what enshrining aboriginal title and treaty rights in the Charter has done.

The situation is admittedly difficult, for the Western legal tradition was not built with Native inhabitants in mind which were supposed to be eradicated by violence or forceful assimilation in the first place. Or, in the least aggressive version, though not really benign, to be drawn by the confort and patronizing superiority of the English civilization.

Natives were never meant to be part of the citizenry of Canada - until very, very recently.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
Indeed, they already are in Toronto. So far, no great tensions.

The biggest challenge is providing sufficient ESL education support.  Once that problem is addressed I see nothing but upside to increasing minority populations.

I come at this issue a bit differently then most white folks.  Years ago I had a social encounter during a cocktail party of someone complaining to me about the effect of immigration in Canada.  He said it all started with the Germans and Ukrainian immigration waves and then continued to go down from there diluting the good Anglo Protestant spirit of the land.  When I told him my last name and told him my mothers maiden name (my last name is unmistakably German and my mother's maiden name is unmistakably Ukranian) he made a hurried retreat to the opposite side of the room.

I like to think that people like that know better now but I am not so sure.

Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2010, 09:39:42 AM
She can go back to Egypt if she wants to live in a muslim society.

:huh:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FGods.jpg&hash=fc5941a969b214b03b5cea1cfc29f72edf212f26)

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 15, 2010, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 12:26:52 PM
Which is exactly what enshrining aboriginal title and treaty rights in the Charter has done.

The situation is admittedly difficult, for the Western legal tradition was not built with Native inhabitants in mind which were supposed to be eradicated by violence or forceful assimilation in the first place. Or, in the least aggressive version, though not really benign, to be drawn by the confort and patronizing superiority of the English civilization.

Natives were never meant to be part of the citizenry of Canada - until very, very recently.

Reminds me of a discussion I had with one of my professors in law school.  I took a course of his on the ethics of law.  He was also dedicated to the cause of aboriginal rights.  In the course one of the main themes was that rights based on status was archaic and had no role in a proper modern democratic society.  When I drew the contradiction in teaching that concept and championing rights based on status he simply shrugged and said that in the case of aboriginals there was no other alternative unless we were prepared to abandon a generation or two of aboriginals who know nothing but dependence on the State.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 12:08:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 12:30:56 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew.  :D

Or a gay man, or a francophone in a predominatly anglphone country lol

Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2010, 09:39:42 AM
She can go back to Egypt if she wants to live in a muslim society.

the funniest part of this story is that she couldn't wear the veil in Egypt, she didn't wear the veil when she first arrived here, only once she sat in her French class.

Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2010, 02:14:14 PM
the funniest part of this story is that she couldn't wear the veil in Egypt, she didn't wear the veil when she first arrived here, only once she sat in her French class.

That's some side splitting humor.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 15, 2010, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 12:26:52 PM
Which is exactly what enshrining aboriginal title and treaty rights in the Charter has done.

The situation is admittedly difficult, for the Western legal tradition was not built with Native inhabitants in mind which were supposed to be eradicated by violence or forceful assimilation in the first place. Or, in the least aggressive version, though not really benign, to be drawn by the confort and patronizing superiority of the English civilization.

Natives were never meant to be part of the citizenry of Canada - until very, very recently.

There is certainly a complex problem associated with the livelihood of First Nations. To keep them artificially in a sort of evolutionary limbo, living (as much as possible) as their ancestors have done, is to condemn them to irrelevance: in the modern world, not entirely of English Canada's making, it is simply very difficult to live as hunter-gatherers or subsistance agriculturalists. OTOH, to not do so (whether or not one insists on assimilation) is to condemn First Nations to cultural change.

The unhappy result of first adopting a policy of more or less forceable assimilation, followed by one of attempting cultural preservation by government fiat and "group rights", has been to have the worst of both worlds: to create a sort of government-funded, mostly rural third world ghetto full of angry and partly decultured folk scattered across Canada, many of whose citizens' only hope of escape is either to assimilate or to squeeze further financial concessions out of the majority society (the fruits of which politicing are very unevenly distributed and an open temptation to political corruption).   

Not exactly a poster child for the value and success of "group rights" as a model. The only argument in favour of it is that it holds off assimilation. To my mind, a certain amount of assimilation - not forced, but merely allowed - would be superior: without a source of livelihood existing outside of English (or for that matter, French) Canada, pretending that the way of life of the native Canadian is not doomed is hopeless in the long term: only the very exceptional person can actually live by hunting and gathering or subsistance agriculture.

This does not mean that the Native identity or culture is doomed, only that it must change. As do we all. Canadian Jews do not, by and large, seek to re-create the ghettos and shtetls of Eastern Europe (leaving aside the ultra-orthodox  ;)); for that matter, the French Canadians by and large do not farm strip-farms along the St. Lawrence for their feudal overlords, or search the wilderness for beavers to make into hats.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew.  :D

funny you'd say that :)
There was an open letter, this morning I think, by the Canadian Jewish Congress (actually, the Quebec Jewish Congress, but that's the same) in most newspaper complaining about our "obsession for laicity".  I guess some people aren't that integrated after all ;)

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 02:24:51 PM
There is certainly a complex problem associated with the livelihood of First Nations. To keep them artificially in a sort of evolutionary limbo, living (as much as possible) as their ancestors have done, is to condemn them to irrelevance: in the modern world, not entirely of English Canada's making, it is simply very difficult to live as hunter-gatherers or subsistance agriculturalists. OTOH, to not do so (whether or not one insists on assimilation) is to condemn First Nations to cultural change.

The unhappy result of first adopting a policy of more or less forceable assimilation, followed by one of attempting cultural preservation by government fiat and "group rights", has been to have the worst of both worlds: to create a sort of government-funded, mostly rural third world ghetto full of angry and partly decultured folk scattered across Canada, many of whose citizens' only hope of escape is either to assimilate or to squeeze further financial concessions out of the majority society (the fruits of which politicing are very unevenly distributed and an open temptation to political corruption).   

Not exactly a poster child for the value and success of "group rights" as a model. The only argument in favour of it is that it holds off assimilation. To my mind, a certain amount of assimilation - not forced, but merely allowed - would be superior: without a source of livelihood existing outside of English (or for that matter, French) Canada, pretending that the way of life of the native Canadian is not doomed is hopeless in the long term: only the very exceptional person can actually live by hunting and gathering or subsistance agriculture.

This does not mean that the Native identity or culture is doomed, only that it must change. As do we all. Canadian Jews do not, by and large, seek to re-create the ghettos and shtetls of Eastern Europe (leaving aside the ultra-orthodox  ;)); for that matter, the French Canadians by and large do not farm strip-farms along the St. Lawrence for their feudal overlords, or search the wilderness for beavers to make into hats.

To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

They are engaged in exactly the same discussion as many other minority cultures - what does it mean to be a Jew/Muslim/Cree/Mohawk in the 21st century?  How can we hold on to that culture yet participate in the wider society?

However unlike Muslims/Jews/Ukrainians, they do not have some homeland 'over there' from which to draw inspiration.  They are unique in that effect, and so some degree of recognition of that uniqueness through recognizing certain special group rights can be justified.

Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2010, 02:28:49 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew.  :D

funny you'd say that :)
There was an open letter, this morning I think, by the Canadian Jewish Congress (actually, the Quebec Jewish Congress, but that's the same) in most newspaper complaining about our "obsession for laicity".  I guess some people aren't that integrated after all ;)

I think you missed the point.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 02:24:51 PM
There is certainly a complex problem associated with the livelihood of First Nations. To keep them artificially in a sort of evolutionary limbo, living (as much as possible) as their ancestors have done, is to condemn them to irrelevance: in the modern world, not entirely of English Canada's making, it is simply very difficult to live as hunter-gatherers or subsistance agriculturalists. OTOH, to not do so (whether or not one insists on assimilation) is to condemn First Nations to cultural change.

The unhappy result of first adopting a policy of more or less forceable assimilation, followed by one of attempting cultural preservation by government fiat and "group rights", has been to have the worst of both worlds: to create a sort of government-funded, mostly rural third world ghetto full of angry and partly decultured folk scattered across Canada, many of whose citizens' only hope of escape is either to assimilate or to squeeze further financial concessions out of the majority society (the fruits of which politicing are very unevenly distributed and an open temptation to political corruption).   

Not exactly a poster child for the value and success of "group rights" as a model. The only argument in favour of it is that it holds off assimilation. To my mind, a certain amount of assimilation - not forced, but merely allowed - would be superior: without a source of livelihood existing outside of English (or for that matter, French) Canada, pretending that the way of life of the native Canadian is not doomed is hopeless in the long term: only the very exceptional person can actually live by hunting and gathering or subsistance agriculture.

This does not mean that the Native identity or culture is doomed, only that it must change. As do we all. Canadian Jews do not, by and large, seek to re-create the ghettos and shtetls of Eastern Europe (leaving aside the ultra-orthodox  ;)); for that matter, the French Canadians by and large do not farm strip-farms along the St. Lawrence for their feudal overlords, or search the wilderness for beavers to make into hats.

To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

They are engaged in exactly the same discussion as many other minority cultures - what does it mean to be a Jew/Muslim/Cree/Mohawk in the 21st century?  How can we hold on to that culture yet participate in the wider society?

However unlike Muslims/Jews/Ukrainians, they do not have some homeland 'over there' from which to draw inspiration.  They are unique in that effect, and so some degree of recognition of that uniqueness through recognizing certain special group rights can be justified.

You are mixing up "purpose" with "result". I am not saying that native people *wish* to be 'preserved in amber', merely that this is the inevitable *result* of the very policies designed, well-meaning and mostly by non-natives, to reverse the mistakes of the past and to "recognize their uniqueness" while enabling them to adapt at their own pace and under "self government".

The road to Hell, some say, is paved with good intentions. Never was this more true than in Canada's policies towards the First Nations. The result is the call for more such policies, since those that exist are quite visibly "not working" - in that they have produced [edit: or at least, have not prevented] a population that is impoverished, crime and addiction ridden, and in every way statistically prone to disfunctionality. The result of providing more such policies would, I predict, be an increase in dysfunction.

The same would be true if there was a government department designed to paternally work towards Jewish or Ukranian well-being, with Jews or Ukranians ruled by unaccountable "local self-government" holding the purse strings of federal largesse, with divisive arguments over who is or is not 'status' for the purpose of access to the stream of federal perks. 

Fortunately, other peoples are free from this corrosive system, which inevitable erodes self-esteem and self-reliance.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PMTo use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

They are engaged in exactly the same discussion as many other minority cultures - what does it mean to be a Jew/Muslim/Cree/Mohawk in the 21st century?  How can we hold on to that culture yet participate in the wider society?

However unlike Muslims/Jews/Ukrainians, they do not have some homeland 'over there' from which to draw inspiration.  They are unique in that effect, and so some degree of recognition of that uniqueness through recognizing certain special group rights can be justified.

Well put Barrister.  That matches my understanding, but I'm sure you're a lot closer to these sort of issues by virtue of your location.

I'd like gay self-government with access to the stream of the federal penis.

Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2010, 02:28:49 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew.  :D

funny you'd say that :)
There was an open letter, this morning I think, by the Canadian Jewish Congress (actually, the Quebec Jewish Congress, but that's the same) in most newspaper complaining about our "obsession for laicity".  I guess some people aren't that integrated after all ;)

It's not an argument likely to appeal to Jews, because if it appealed to their ancestors, there would be no Jews.  :lol:

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.   

:lmfao:

I don't think I have seen this done quite so blatantly on Languish before.

I almost think that you did it as a joke, Beeb, but I know better - you doesn't see the irony at all, I bet.

Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 03:12:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PMTo use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

They are engaged in exactly the same discussion as many other minority cultures - what does it mean to be a Jew/Muslim/Cree/Mohawk in the 21st century?  How can we hold on to that culture yet participate in the wider society?

However unlike Muslims/Jews/Ukrainians, they do not have some homeland 'over there' from which to draw inspiration.  They are unique in that effect, and so some degree of recognition of that uniqueness through recognizing certain special group rights can be justified.

Well put Barrister.  That matches my understanding, but I'm sure you're a lot closer to these sort of issues by virtue of your location.

Serious question for BB and Jacob etc. - do you see Canada's First Canadian policy as successful?

Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2010, 03:13:30 PM
I'd like gay self-government with access to the stream of the federal penis.

I'd think a little experience with government-assigned penis would convince you otherwise.  :D

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 03:24:53 PM
I'd think a little experience with government-assigned penis would convince you otherwise.  :D

I'm willing to take one for the team. :)

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

Stating what "Native people" want and dont want is not very productive.  Even less productive then politicians pontificating about what "Canadians" want.

One of the biggest difficulties in dealing with Native issues is that Natives have many and varied ideas about what should be done both within and across bands.  Added to this problem is that there is a significant difference in both education and sophistication across bands.  There is no such thing as a one policy fits all.  We have all screwed this up too much for that.  Mathlus' analysis is quite correct.  Creating a system of residential schools and government policies expressly designed to destroy Native culture and then creating a highly paternalistic system to try to save that same culture (although in many cases too late) has created a complete mess.

Added to all that the enshrinement of the protection of Aboriginal Title protection (as now interpreted in the Courts) has added another layer of disfunction to the relationship which creates huge uncertainty over land use issues for foreseeable generations.

BB,

As a concrete example, about 10 years ago there was a serious movement among the Native National leadership to lobby the Federal Gov't to completely abolish the Indian Act.  There was a lot of concern in the Native communities that such a move would be too hard on the Natives because many of the benefits of being a ward of the State under the Indian Act would be lost.  The leadership argued that Natives had to get back on their feet.  That the road ahead could only be taken once the Indian Act was abolished.

Now where are we.  Not only is the Indian Act still in place but it was reported last week that Ottawa has decided to increase the number of people who can now qualify under the Act.

There is no clear policy, no one know what the hell they are doing (either Federally, Provincially or in the Native communities) and the problem of Native poverty, alcoholism, crime etc. continues to get worse.

Chief Joe Mathius was right when he said it all stems from the Indian Act.  Giving people a specially protected status is the wrong way to go.  History teaches us that the group becomes dependant on the status rather then growing beyond it.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 03:12:04 PM
You are mixing up "purpose" with "result". I am not saying that native people *wish* to be 'preserved in amber', merely that this is the inevitable *result* of the very policies designed, well-meaning and mostly by non-natives, to reverse the mistakes of the past and to "recognize their uniqueness" while enabling them to adapt at their own pace and under "self government".

I think you are mixing your chronology here. What, exactly, do you see as the result of the recent federal policies ?

What we see today, I would argue, is far from being the result of recent policies - it is rather the result of years and years of policies designed, not to emancipate, but rather to infantilize, with little regard to a tradition that was only deemed worthy of eradication. I mean, the kidnapping of Indian children to send them in various religious pensions is recent enough that people who lived it are still alive and relatively young!

You can argue that the recent monetary compensations given to band councils are not helping; you are quite possibly right, but band councils in themselves, are a creation of 1876. Every attempt to reform the Indian act is always complicated by the fact that even "Native" identity is somewhat recent (what exactly unites a Nuxalk and a Huron ?) and that, in the end, proclaiming the end of the reserve is always proclaiming the end of any attempt at self-government and self-definition.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 03:44:05 PMCreating a system of residential schools and government policies expressly designed to destroy Native culture and then creating a highly paternalistic system to try to save that same culture (although in many cases too late) has created a complete mess.

See above. The whole "paternalistic system" came about many, many years before the residential school policy was enacted.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 03:21:04 PMSerious question for BB and Jacob etc. - do you see Canada's First Canadian policy as successful?

I couldn't rightly say.  I think what CC says, and what Joe Mathius said, has a lot of merit.  But I don't have enough knowledge or exposure to really say whether it is working, where it is breaking down and how to fix it.

I do have reasonably favourable impression of the Nisga'a and Maa-'Nulth treaties, but again, I don't know enough to say for sure.  I did speak to one guy, an elected band council member for one of the Maa-'Nulth treaty signatories and he did suggest that a fair amount of the kvetching, arguing and grumbling is just par for the course for any sort of democratic decision making and not some specific "native problem" (just witness unions, congresses, knitting clubs and any other group of people discussing things and making decisions - it can get messy).

The main point of Barrister's which I was agreeing with is that starting from the point that natives ought to try to live like they did 200 years ago to preserve their culture, and to negotiate with native groups and try to help solve the problems their communities face starting with that point of view is not productive.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 15, 2010, 04:00:18 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 03:44:05 PMCreating a system of residential schools and government policies expressly designed to destroy Native culture and then creating a highly paternalistic system to try to save that same culture (although in many cases too late) has created a complete mess.

See above. The whole "paternalistic system" came about many, many years before the residential school policy was enacted.

You are correct but the earlier form of paternalism was directed at assimilation.  The subsequent form of paternalism directed at "protecting" them may have been worse.

Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2010, 03:18:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.   

:lmfao:

I don't think I have seen this done quite so blatantly on Languish before.

I almost think that you did it as a joke, Beeb, but I know better - you doesn't see the irony at all, I bet.

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me.  :)

Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 04:06:36 PM
I do have reasonably favourable impression of the Nisga'a and Maa-'Nulth treaties

If all bands were like the Nisga'a we would not have any issues to talk about.  There you have a people who's culture and language stayed relatively intact, who have land, educated and able leadership and a very bright future.  If all bands were like them we could abolish the Indian Act tommorrow and nobody would care or notice.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 04:15:26 PMIf all bands were like the Nisga'a we would not have any issues to talk about.  There you have a people who's culture and language stayed relatively intact, who have land, educated and able leadership and a very bright future.  If all bands were like them we could abolish the Indian Act tommorrow and nobody would care or notice.

It's encouraging to know that there's at least some parts where it's working out.  Hopefully the Nisga'a can serve as a useful example for other bands and spur positive change.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 03:21:04 PM
Serious question for BB and Jacob etc. - do you see Canada's First Canadian policy as successful?

"successful" is a rather binary term for a social policy.  It's better to ask if it is more or less successful than other potential policies.

Oex points out that our current federal government policy of accomodation and respect is only about, oh, 35 years old (from the mid 70s and the White Paper).  Before that the policy was out-and-out assimilation.  And we have pretty good evidence that policy was quite unsuccessful.

Is the current policy better than the old one?  Yes, I think it is.  We have several examples of bands that are doing quite well, and many more examples of bands where outcomes seem to be improving.  And yes, we have examples where things are going quite poorly.  I disagree with CC when he says that "the problem of Native poverty, alcoholism, crime etc. continues to get worse."  Just as an example I looked at Nunavut, which has the largest % of First Nations people in Canada, and thus stats for Nunavut are a good proxy for state for First Nations people.  According to one survey, crime rates in Nunavut peaks in 2004, and have been dropping (only goes to 2007):  http://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/stats/StatsData/Crime/Nunavut%20Crime%20Statistics%20Profile,%202007%20(by%20Statistics%20Canada).pdf

UNemployment rates have been dropping:  http://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/stats/StatsData/Crime/Nunavut%20Crime%20Statistics%20Profile,%202007%20(by%20Statistics%20Canada).pdf

As an aside, I do agree with CC that talking about First Nations as a monolithic entity is a mistake.  There are several hundred individual bands and groups, with greatly varying conditions.  That being said I think my original statement is correct - it is one thing all Natives would agree with that they do not wish to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They all agree they want to adapt their culture to modern society (it is how exactlly to do that that they disagree with).

There are plenty of things that can be done differently, or better, in our dealing with aboriginal people in Canada.  However my objection is merely to the blanket statement that 'collective rights are unknown/alien to western legal tradition', or the simplistic assertion that the answer to our native 'problem' is to abolish any special treatment aboriginal people receive.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PMNope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me.  :)

I think it's that you're a white guy and authority figure speaking for Native people and saying that they don't want "white guys and authority figures speaking for them", more or less.

Which I didn't take it to be, to be honest.  I figured it was more of you repeating what you've been told by Native people, rather than telling Native people what's best for them.

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

Hey G, remember when I said you were a poor salesman for the concept of collective rights?

It's an attack on you as a person, rather it's an attack on the things you say.  Like this.  Comments such as "cloth prison", "moongod death cult", and "people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy" make it hard to take you seriously.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:30:45 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

Hey G, remember when I said you were a poor salesman for the concept of collective rights?

It's an attack on you as a person, rather it's an attack on the things you say.  Like this.  Comments such as "cloth prison", "moongod death cult", and "people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy" make it hard to take you seriously.

Figures, right wing Xianists are starting to take up the battle standard of the moon god death cult.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2010, 03:18:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.   

:lmfao:

I don't think I have seen this done quite so blatantly on Languish before.

I almost think that you did it as a joke, Beeb, but I know better - you doesn't see the irony at all, I bet.

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me.  :)

I knew you wouldn't see it, and am not sure I have the vocabulary to explain it o that you are able to understand it, but here goes my best shot at it:  look at what you are accusing Malthus of, and then look at what you did immediately thereafter - setting up for attack an argument which no one was making, about native peoples not wanting to live exactly as their ancestors did.  The funny element here is that you are falsely accusing Malthus of creating a strawman, and then creating a strawman as your proof.

If that is too complex for you, then just skip it.  I cannot make it any simpler.  I think everyone else gets it.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg535.imageshack.us%2Fimg535%2F1691%2Fmoongod.jpg&hash=58b2e7ae351dbd7129caf0a6d0e049a66a2fa805)

Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 04:25:10 PM
It's encouraging to know that there's at least some parts where it's working out.  Hopefully the Nisga'a can serve as a useful example for other bands and spur positive change.

I look at all of Canada's social policies (where they differ from the US's) in that regard.  Different policies and outcomes are good, so long as we distinguish between the outcomes that are worth recreating and those that are not.

Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2010, 04:38:40 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2010, 03:18:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.   

:lmfao:

I don't think I have seen this done quite so blatantly on Languish before.

I almost think that you did it as a joke, Beeb, but I know better - you doesn't see the irony at all, I bet.

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me.  :)

I knew you wouldn't see it, and am not sure I have the vocabulary to explain it o that you are able to understand it, but here goes my best shot at it:  look at what you are accusing Malthus of, and then look at what you did immediately thereafter - setting up for attack an argument which no one was making, about native peoples not wanting to live exactly as their ancestors did.  The funny element here is that you are falsely accusing Malthus of creating a strawman, and then creating a strawman as your proof.

If that is too complex for you, then just skip it.  I cannot make it any simpler.  I think everyone else gets it.

Yeah.  Hilarious.

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

:lol: :huh: :lol: :huh: :lol:

Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 04:27:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PMNope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me.  :)

I think it's that you're a white guy and authority figure speaking for Native people and saying that they don't want "white guys and authority figures speaking for them", more or less.

Which I didn't take it to be, to be honest.  I figured it was more of you repeating what you've been told by Native people, rather than telling Native people what's best for them.

Nice try, but much simpler than that.  I don't have a dog in this race at all; I was just amused by the accusation of strawmanning followed immediately by a strawman.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:30:45 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

Hey G, remember when I said you were a poor salesman for the concept of collective rights?

It's an attack on you as a person, rather it's an attack on the things you say.  Like this.  Comments such as "cloth prison", "moongod death cult", and "people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy" make it hard to take you seriously.

Also the pedophilia.

Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2010, 02:18:04 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2010, 02:14:14 PM
the funniest part of this story is that she couldn't wear the veil in Egypt, she didn't wear the veil when she first arrived here, only once she sat in her French class.

That's some side splitting humor.

Yeah. The nerve of some people. Coming to the Western democracies from third-world human-rights-violating dictatorial shitholes and demanding to be given the same rights as the whites.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

And you could have a great time in the Mormon Church as long as you don't try to fuck any men, and give up smoking and drinking.   :)

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 04:26:59 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 03:21:04 PM
Serious question for BB and Jacob etc. - do you see Canada's First Canadian policy as successful?

"successful" is a rather binary term for a social policy.  It's better to ask if it is more or less successful than other potential policies.

Oex points out that our current federal government policy of accomodation and respect is only about, oh, 35 years old (from the mid 70s and the White Paper).  Before that the policy was out-and-out assimilation.  And we have pretty good evidence that policy was quite unsuccessful.

Is the current policy better than the old one?  Yes, I think it is.  We have several examples of bands that are doing quite well, and many more examples of bands where outcomes seem to be improving.  And yes, we have examples where things are going quite poorly.  I disagree with CC when he says that "the problem of Native poverty, alcoholism, crime etc. continues to get worse."  Just as an example I looked at Nunavut, which has the largest % of First Nations people in Canada, and thus stats for Nunavut are a good proxy for state for First Nations people.  According to one survey, crime rates in Nunavut peaks in 2004, and have been dropping (only goes to 2007):  http://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/stats/StatsData/Crime/Nunavut%20Crime%20Statistics%20Profile,%202007%20(by%20Statistics%20Canada).pdf

UNemployment rates have been dropping:  http://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/stats/StatsData/Crime/Nunavut%20Crime%20Statistics%20Profile,%202007%20(by%20Statistics%20Canada).pdf

As an aside, I do agree with CC that talking about First Nations as a monolithic entity is a mistake.  There are several hundred individual bands and groups, with greatly varying conditions.  That being said I think my original statement is correct - it is one thing all Natives would agree with that they do not wish to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They all agree they want to adapt their culture to modern society (it is how exactlly to do that that they disagree with).

There are plenty of things that can be done differently, or better, in our dealing with aboriginal people in Canada.  However my objection is merely to the blanket statement that 'collective rights are unknown/alien to western legal tradition', or the simplistic assertion that the answer to our native 'problem' is to abolish any special treatment aboriginal people receive.

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Canada should go back to the old policies of forcible assimilation - the residence schools and so on.

The current policies are the flipside of that, and not as obviously offensive - indeed have been designed I assume with the best of intentions - but they are rooted in a concept of 'top-down' social policy that has, in my opinion, not delivered good results.

The alternative is not a choice between 'positive' group rights (the current position) and 'negative' group liabilities (or forced assimilation - the old policy). There also exists the alternative of not engaging in legally discriminating between Canadian citizens in the first place, positive or negative, which has not been tried.

The benefit? Well, this policy appears to have been reasonably successful in other contexts: treating citizens without discrimination may be a bold step, but it accords well with Western constitutional traditions. So far, the departure from these traditions has always had unhappy results, and I think the burden on those supporting current First Nations policies is to demonstrate that in this case the departure has been justified.   

Quote from: Queequeg on March 15, 2010, 04:56:48 PM

Quote from: Grallon on March 15, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

And you could have a great time in the Mormon Church as long as you don't try to fuck any men, and give up smoking and drinking.   :)

No worries there. Grallon doesn't fuck men. ;)

I think, Malthus, the problem is that some Native people would see this as the final step in cultural genocide against their people:

"You come here, take our land and kill our people; now you take away the last vestiges of our rights and break the last promises you made to us.  All in the name of equality and progress?"

Something like that.

That said, if the various special status situations can be discarded in a way that is positive for Native people (and I believe that's what the Nisga'a and Maa-Nulth' treaties are doing) then yeah, let's do it.  However, I think that the most important thing at this point is that any changes in the status of Native people and how they interact with the government should have serious if not complete buy in from the peoples most affected.  We don't just get to say "yeah, so we've decided to take away your various privileges and status because that's better for you.  You're equal now, see?  Good luck!" by fiat and without consultation and buy-in.

So yeah, equality is great.  Changes to the social order based on what those who are uninvolved and unaffected by the outcomes and based on abstract ideals, often less great.

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 05:03:49 PM
The current policies are the flipside of that, and not as obviously offensive - indeed have been designed I assume with the best of intentions - but they are rooted in a concept of 'top-down' social policy that has, in my opinion, not delivered good results.

I am sorry, I might have missed your answer, but could you give an example of what recent policies have not given good results ?

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 05:03:49 PM
The alternative is not a choice between 'positive' group rights (the current position) and 'negative' group liabilities (or forced assimilation - the old policy). There also exists the alternative of not engaging in legally discriminating between Canadian citizens in the first place, positive or negative, which has not been tried.

The benefit? Well, this policy appears to have been reasonably successful in other contexts: treating citizens without discrimination may be a bold step, but it accords well with Western constitutional traditions. So far, the departure from these traditions has always had unhappy results, and I think the burden on those supporting current First Nations policies is to demonstrate that in this case the departure has been justified.   

You set up a false dichotomy.  The pre-70s poplicy of assimilation was one where the end goal was to treat natives no differently than non-natives.  Native status would be abolished, and we would all be Canadians.

The problem with your suggestion is that it would have the effect of the majority taking away the existing (group) rights of the minority.  It has the added disadvantage of not being what First Nations people seem to want (and fair enough for Jacob to say I'm in a delicate position as a government official trying to say what native people want).  Indeed the first 'demand' of almost every native advocacy group is for 'Treaties to be honoured'.

I agree with Jacob - any changes in the status of native people in Canada needs to be done in consultation with the same native people.   Now you guys may not know but a case from Yukon on the meaning of 'consultation' is currently before the SCC - the First Nation in question appeared to say that a government obligation to consult gives a virtual veto to the FIrst Nation in question.  I would not agree with that assertion, but definitely - you can and should not change the status of native people without their input.  And the message I get from native people is that while they wish to change their status and place in Canada, they do not want tto simply have those ancient rights and treaties annulled.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 15, 2010, 05:33:48 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2010, 05:03:49 PM
The current policies are the flipside of that, and not as obviously offensive - indeed have been designed I assume with the best of intentions - but they are rooted in a concept of 'top-down' social policy that has, in my opinion, not delivered good results.

I am sorry, I might have missed your answer, but could you give an example of what recent policies have not given good results ?

It is not one policy per se but the continuation of the Indian Act and all that flows from it.   If you want a explicit example, then take as just one such example the failure to allow Natives to control land and resources within reserves.  One of the main reasons for Native poverty is that while they live on reserve they do not own or control that land.  Until very recently all decisions regarding reserve land was delegated to the authority of the Federal Government.  One of the ramifications of that is that no Native living on reserve could obtain a loan secured by land (one of the main vehicle by which the rest of society obtains access to capital).  The policy is grounded in the paternalistic (and in some cases entirely accurate) view that the Federal government were better custodians (Trustees) then the elected band government.

Through more recent land use agreements access to Bands are now able to market their land and use it as security in business ventures and that has made a great deal of difference to the bands in the Vancouver area.


I could go on for quite some time but in short, it is not for nothing that leadership within the Native community have pushed to have the Indian Act abolished and replaced by a series of land use agreements which are not paternalistic but resemble municiple type powers.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 05:34:57 PM
Now you guys may not know but a case from Yukon on the meaning of 'consultation' is currently before the SCC - the First Nation in question appeared to say that a government obligation to consult gives a virtual veto to the FIrst Nation in question.  I would not agree with that assertion, but definitely - you can and should not change the status of native people without their input.  And the message I get from native people is that while they wish to change their status and place in Canada, they do not want tto simply have those ancient rights and treaties annulled.

I dont know about that case but I can tell you it is one in a long line of such accommodation cases that stretches back a number of years.  I have been involved in a couple myself. :smarty:

Saying that they dont want their ancient rights and treaties annulled is a bit of a meaningless statement since the biggest problem in the West is that there are no treaties and nobody is quite sure what their rights are nevermind their "ancient rights".

Also, I take issue with your stats from Nunavut which you then try to generalize across all native communities.  Nunavut is a very special case in that it is a large territory which has de facto been given over to local aboriginal government - since most voters in that territory are aboriginal.  You would expect to see different outcomes for communities that are able to make decisions for themselves.  As opposed to the sorry state of Natives living on Government controlled reserves.

What Natives are eventually going to have to come to grips with is do they want to continue to be wards of the State or do they want to go in the direction of the more progressive bands and create situations for themselves under which the Indian Act becomes irrelevant.

The sad truth is that very few will have the political will or ability to become independant.  So we are left with moral question.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 15, 2010, 05:50:16 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 05:47:38 PM
It is not one policy per se but the continuation of the Indian Act and all that flows from it.   If you want a explicit example, then take as just one such example the failure to allow Natives to control land and resources within reserves.  One of the main reasons for Native poverty is that while they live on reserve they do not own or control that land.  Until very recently all decisions regarding reserve land was delegated to the authority of the Federal Government.  One of the ramifications of that is that no Native living on reserve could obtain a loan secured by land (one of the main vehicle by which the rest of society obtains access to capital).  The policy is grounded in the paternalistic (and in some cases entirely accurate) view that the Federal government were better custodians (Trustees) then the elected band government.

Through more recent land use agreements access to Bands are now able to market their land and use it as security in business ventures and that has made a great deal of difference to the bands in the Vancouver area.


I could go on for quite some time but in short, it is not for nothing that leadership within the Native community have pushed to have the Indian Act abolished and replaced by a series of land use agreements which are not paternalistic but resemble municiple type powers.

Almost all of the Yukon First Nations have signed Final Agreements which give them far more than "minicipal type powers".  In fact one of the confusing things up here is that First Nations have these broad powers, but they often show little interest in using them.  I sat though  a meeting in Carcross with a Territorial Court Judge and the chief of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) where they were asking us what they should do to integrate the band into the child and family welfare system.  I wanted to stand up and say 'they are your powers - why are you asking us government suits for permission?  Just do it!'

I agree that the issue of how land and housing has been dealt with is not (from my outsider's perspective) one that has been very positive or helpful.  But various ideas for reforming that system have been floated, and potential amendments to the Indian Act proposed - mostly to be shot down by Native leadership.  It is not due to the 'paternalistic Federal government' that First Nations can not mortgage their land - it is because most band councils do not wish to go down that road.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:02:22 PM
Almost all of the Yukon First Nations have signed Final Agreements which give them far more than "minicipal type powers".  In fact one of the confusing things up here is that First Nations have these broad powers, but they often show little interest in using them.  I sat though  a meeting in Carcross with a Territorial Court Judge and the chief of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) where they were asking us what they should do to integrate the band into the child and family welfare system.  I wanted to stand up and say 'they are your powers - why are you asking us government suits for permission?  Just do it!'

That is the big fear with self government - that they wont do it well.  But in my view it is much better then the alternative of having the Federal government take it on under the Indian Act and also they cant be any worse then some of the municipal politicians I have seen.

QuoteIt is not due to the 'paternalistic Federal government' that First Nations can not mortgage their land - it is because most band councils do not wish to go down that road.

BB, you are just wrong about this.  Providing some economic flexibility in land use for reserve land is a very recent phenomenon.  Frankly I am not overly critical of a lot of bands not wanting to do this until they understand exactly how those debts will be paid and what certainy there is regarding land use or put more directly until they determine what the highest and best use of the land is based on what the government will let them do with it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 05:57:21 PM
I dont know about that case but I can tell you it is one in a long line of such accommodation cases that stretches back a number of years.  I have been involved in a couple myself. :smarty:

Saying that they dont want their ancient rights and treaties annulled is a bit of a meaningless statement since the biggest problem in the West is that there are no treaties and nobody is quite sure what their rights are nevermind their "ancient rights".

Also, I take issue with your stats from Nunavut which you then try to generalize across all native communities.  Nunavut is a very special case in that it is a large territory which has de facto been given over to local aboriginal government - since most voters in that territory are aboriginal.  You would expect to see different outcomes for communities that are able to make decisions for themselves.  As opposed to the sorry state of Natives living on Government controlled reserves.

What Natives are eventually going to have to come to grips with is do they want to continue to be wards of the State or do they want to go in the direction of the more progressive bands and create situations for themselves under which the Indian Act becomes irrelevant.

The sad truth is that very few will have the political will or ability to become independant.  So we are left with moral question.

As for the case:

http://www.canlii.org/en/yk/ykca/doc/2008/2008ykca13/2008ykca13.html

It was argued before the SCC in the fall.

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.

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?

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:11:35 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 06:11:04 PM
That is the big fear with self government - that they wont do it well.  But in my view it is much better then the alternative of having the Federal government take it on under the Indian Act and also they cant be any worse then some of the municipal politicians I have seen.

I agree.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 06:11:04 PM
BB, you are just wrong about this.  Providing some economic flexibility in land use for reserve land is a very recent phenomenon.  Frankly I am not overly critical of a lot of bands not wanting to do this until they understand exactly how those debts will be paid and what certainy there is regarding land use or put more directly until they determine what the highest and best use of the land is based on what the government will let them do with it.

I remember this being floated several times by federal politicians when talking about amending/replacing the Indian Act.  It was not well received.  I think that was within the last decade.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:12:31 PM
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?

:lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 06:14:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:11:35 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:14:32 PM
I remember this being floated several times by federal politicians when talking about amending/replacing the Indian Act.  It was not well received.  I think that was within the last decade.

You and I are recalling the same events.  The impetus came from the National Assembly of Indian Chiefs.  But it lost momentum pretty quickly.  Too many are reliant on the benefits the Act gives them no matter what the negative implications are.

At the time I thought it was a very shrewd move by the Native leadership.  With the Act gone they would have had a very strong hand at the bargaining table and in the Courts to require quick action on their land use issues.    There are still some successful negotations but I dont hold out much hope we will see many more.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:17:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 06:14:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:11:35 PM
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. 

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. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 05:59:10 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 15, 2010, 05:50:16 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:12:31 PM
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?

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:12:31 PM
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. :thumbsup:

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 06:33:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:12:31 PM
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!

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:53:49 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:12:31 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2010, 07:08:33 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 06:53:49 PM
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...   :blush:

Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 07:19:44 PM
Frankel is mine.

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

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2010, 12:55:56 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 12:08:13 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 10:39:53 PM
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.

I agree.  People consider themselves Native or not depending on how they feel, not on what a gov't issued ID card says.  But there are benefits to status, so people try to get it if entitled.

And up here it can be quite tricky to try and guess someone's ancestry.  I know some very light-skinned people with status...

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2010, 10:55:55 AM
And up here it can be quite tricky to try and guess someone's ancestry.  I know some very light-skinned people with status...

That's always been the case when one talks about "races" or "tribes."  Nothing is as pure as the law or tradition says it should be.

One solution, of course, is to just make everyone eligible.  The problem with that, of course, is that it causes the very people arguing for inclusiveness to start arguing against it, and we couldn't have that!  :P

There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2010, 11:23:35 AM
There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

The same thing is happening here in Kanawage.  Imagine discrimination based on racial requirements at our doorstep and you hypocrits cry foul only when Quebec is trying to impose some order among immigrants - in fact you call that 'racist - xenophobic - blah blah blah'.

But let not this distract you all from your satisfied posturing and your smug back patting.  <_<

-----

As for the so called 'natives' or 'first nations' - as if the tribes who existed here before our arrival were nations in the sense we usually define that word - and as if their descendants had anything left of their culture - forever infantilized that they are by the federal state's policies - the best thing that could be done to them/for them is to dissolve the reservations and treat them like normal citizens.  No more dole money - no more tax exemptions either.




G.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 16, 2010, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 10:39:53 PM
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.

thanks cc, that's kinda what I suspected from my quick gleaning of the issue from the newspaper.

Quote from: Grallon on March 16, 2010, 11:50:45 AM
and as if their descendants had anything left of their culture

They certainly do.   :huh:

Many speak their traditional language, get a significant portion of their sustenance as 'country food', continue various native traditions such as carving, dancing, and other activities.  If there wasn't a small % of local FNs that hate me because I've put away family I'd love to attend a stick gambling festival.  I once, briefly, visited Treaty Days at a reserve in Manitoba where there was a hell of a lot of FN culture going on.

Quote from: Grallon on March 16, 2010, 11:50:45 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2010, 11:23:35 AM
There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

The same thing is happening here in Kanawage.  Imagine discrimination based on racial requirements at our doorstep and you hypocrits cry foul only when Quebec is trying to impose some order among immigrants - in fact you call that 'racist - xenophobic - blah blah blah'.

But let not this distract you all from your satisfied posturing and your smug back patting.  <_<

-----

As for the so called 'natives' or 'first nations' - as if the tribes who existed here before our arrival were nations in the sense we usually define that word - and as if their descendants had anything left of their culture - forever infantilized that they are by the federal state's policies - the best thing that could be done to them/for them is to dissolve the reservations and treat them like normal citizens.  No more dole money - no more tax exemptions either.




G.

are all your men of the straw variety? doesn't it get caught in your teeth? :p

By the logic you are using here G. the same argument you are making for the Natives could be made for Quebec. Assimilate to the majority of Canada, stop getting more money in Fed. handouts from Ottawa than the rest of Canada... blah blah.. pisses you off doesn't it. Now you know how natives feel when you speak about them out of your ass.

I think the fact that we all have the freedom to seriously, or unseriously debate about these issues in Canada is a very positive thing. We could be in China where minority cultures still get put down for being uppity.

There's a Mohawk reserve in Canada? Huh. I thought they were from the Albany area.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2010, 12:34:07 PM
There's a Mohawk reserve in Canada? Huh. I thought they were from the Albany area.

It was a big Nation back in tha day. 49th parallel be damned.

The question is:  Is FN culture worth enough that we shouldn't annihilate it, as our forefathers intended?

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 16, 2010, 10:28:02 AMI 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.

Not always, I don't think.  I have a friend who got his status a few years back, and as far as I could tell it was all about identity and host of family and community issues.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2010, 12:34:07 PM
There's a Mohawk reserve in Canada? Huh. I thought they were from the Albany area.

Being the Easternmost tribe of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people, they were the most entangled with Europeans/colonists and displaced even prior to the Revolution.  There were already fairly large settlements of Mohawks in modern Canada and Northern New York when war broke out.  The vast, vast majority of Mohawks backed the British under such leaders as Joseph Brant, and as such evacuated the rebel controlled lands they still had left near Albany (i.e. Canadaigua, Johnstown, etc.).  They fled to Fort Niagara near modern Buffalo, NY and straight north to join their already removed relations.  Following the war the vast majority continued to live in or near Canada, settling such communities as Wayne Gretzky's hometown of Brantford (Brant's Ford) in what was known as the Halimand Tract. :Canuck:

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 16, 2010, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 10:39:53 PM
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.

The problem of benefits in a nutshell: no-one (or very few) will ever say no to free federal cash, if they can get it; but unless that entitlement is carefully targeted as a security system only, it tends to act as a dependance trap - no-one would willingly choose to live off benefits if they had other choices, and the provision of benefits can incentivise choices which are clearly long-term bad for individuals.

Linking financial benefits to specific, government-approved behaviour, and linking that to "racial" status, is (simply put) a bad idea. A practical example (again, no doubt done with the best of intentions) is the treatment of taxation. Status Indians pay no taxes if they live on a Reserve.

QuoteMUST REGISTERED INDIANS PAY TAXES?

It depends. There are some situations in which Registered Indians do not pay taxes. Under sections 87 and 90 of the Indian Act, Registered Indians do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their personal and real property that is on a reserve. Personal property includes goods, services and income consistent with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) policies.

* In this document, when the term "First Nation" is used in the context of the Indian Act, it refers to an Indian Act band.

Since income is personal property, as a Registered (or entitled-to-be-registered) Indian, you may also be exempt from paying income tax on income earned on a reserve. For example, Registered Indians who work on a reserve do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their employment income. See the CCRA's June 1994 guidelines of "Indian Exemption on Employment Income."

Registered Indians do not pay federal or provincial sales taxes on personal and real property on a reserve. The federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) does not apply to on-reserve goods or to those goods acquired by a Registered Indian off-reserve, if the goods are delivered to a reserve by the vendor or the vendor's agent. Most provincial sales taxes are applied in a similar fashion. Special provincial rules may apply to items such as automobiles and alcohol. For example, in some provinces, an automobile must be registered to a reserve address to be tax exempt. For more information, contact the relevant provincial tax authorities.

A pamphlet outlining how federal GST affects sales and purchases by Registered Indians is available from all CCRA offices.

Source: http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1714#werb

Note that tax benefits are not the only benefits that are only available if you stay put on your reserve.

Now obviously those who are already status Indians living on a reserve are not going to want to lose their tax-exempt status and other benefits. Who in their right minds *wants* to pay taxes and who will say no to free money? Not me!

But equally obviously, this policy is likely to "incentivise" those Indians to remain in what amounts to ghettos, often filled with poverty, crime, substance abuse, etc.

In short, counter-intuitive as it may seem, they would have been better off without the tax and other breaks, as they act as a force tying them to a particular spot - regardless of economic and other advantages which may be available elsewhere. Move to better yourself, and you lose the benefits. Naturally, some of the most ambitious will say to themselves "the hell with the benefits" and move anyway; these are however the very folks whom you would want to stay, to fix their communities.

It is as if you told American Blacks that, if they could in a way satifactory to the government, "prove" that they were really "Black", they were exempt from tax and got all sorts of governmet perks - but only as long as they lived in Detroit. Is it any great surprise the system isn't working well?

Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:09:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 16, 2010, 10:28:02 AMI 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.

Not always, I don't think.  I have a friend who got his status a few years back, and as far as I could tell it was all about identity and host of family and community issues.

What identity did becoming status under that Act give him?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2010, 12:55:56 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 12:08:13 PM
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.

Really? I guess it doesn't work on me.

Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 01:27:13 PM
Note that tax benefits are not the only benefits that are only available if you stay put on your reserve.

Now obviously those who are already status Indians living on a reserve are not going to want to lose their tax-exempt status and other benefits. Who in their right minds *wants* to pay taxes and who will say no to free money? Not me!

But equally obviously, this policy is likely to "incentivise" those Indians to remain in what amounts to ghettos, often filled with poverty, crime, substance abuse, etc.

In short, counter-intuitive as it may seem, they would have been better off without the tax and other breaks, as they act as a force tying them to a particular spot - regardless of economic and other advantages which may be available elsewhere. Move to better yourself, and you lose the benefits. Naturally, some of the most ambitious will say to themselves "the hell with the benefits" and move anyway; these are however the very folks whom you would want to stay, to fix their communities.

It is as if you told American Blacks that, if they could in a way satifactory to the government, "prove" that they were really "Black", they were exempt from tax and got all sorts of governmet perks - but only as long as they lived in Detroit. Is it any great surprise the system isn't working well?

You're not reading your quote correctly.

First, your residence doesn't make any difference for income tax.  What matters is where you earn your income.  So if you take a job on reserve you don't pay tax, but if you take a job off reserve, you do.  So yes, if the choice is between an on-reserve job, and an off-reserve job, you incentivize on-reserve jobs.  If you think about it, that's not actually a bad public policy - promote economic development.  The fact it utterly doesn't work that way has much more to do about the difficulty in starting any kind of private industry on a reserve than it does about the tax benefits.

Second, there aren't all that many benefits that are tied to staying on-reserve.  Housing is about it.  Your band is supposed to provide you with a house on reserve.  But every other benefit, such as medical and education, is not tied to residency.  Off-reserve status people still get those benefits.

And even with those supposed 'incentives', there are more status people living off reserve than on, and the numbers keep growing.

IMHO, the troubles on reserves have much more to do with poor attitudes towards education combined with poor local governance than they do with the Indian Act.

And by the way, all the 'modern' land claims agreement have included provisions doing away with the tax exemption.  That includes the Final Settlements in the Yukon Territory (where we don't have reserves anyways).

Quote from: Grallon on March 16, 2010, 11:50:45 AM
As for the so called 'natives' or 'first nations' - as if the tribes who existed here before our arrival were nations in the sense we usually define that word

The French and the British who arrived here were not nations in the sense we usually define the word either.

Tax breaks were never meant as incentives of anything. They were the logical outcome of treating the Natives as non-citizens. Other financial help stemmed from the gradual transformation of former payments of food and cloth given as part of alliances and treaties, which, through pressure from Indian affairs who thought it was too much to manage, were transformed into cash payments.

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2010, 03:15:14 PM

You're not reading your quote correctly.

First, your residence doesn't make any difference for income tax.  What matters is where you earn your income.

Huh?

Please note that I refer to "taxation" and not specifically "income tax". The quote has two main paragraphs - one referencing "income tax" and the other "personal or real property located on a reserve".

Sure, residence may make no difference for income tax - but it certainly does for real or personal property. Unless, unlike the vast majority of humans, you store your personal property, buy your food, etc. somewhere other than where you live, the location of your "real and personal property", or buy your groceries (and thus pay GST and PST - or not), is likely to be the same as where you live.

I suppose you could live somewhere else and only use the reserve to have your house, store your stuff, buy your groceries, and work, but that would be rather inconvenient, no?

In short, I'm glad you are not my tax advisor.  :D

Quote
So if you take a job on reserve you don't pay tax, but if you take a job off reserve, you do.  So yes, if the choice is between an on-reserve job, and an off-reserve job, you incentivize on-reserve jobs. 

And by making personal or real property tax-free if located on a reserve, you are incentivising on-reserve living.

QuoteIf you think about it, that's not actually a bad public policy - promote economic development.  The fact it utterly doesn't work that way has much more to do about the difficulty in starting any kind of private industry on a reserve than it does about the tax benefits.

Heh. 'The fact that our government plan doesn't work has nothing to do with its essential excellence'.  :D

QuoteSecond, there aren't all that many benefits that are tied to staying on-reserve.  Housing is about it.  Your band is supposed to provide you with a house on reserve.  But every other benefit, such as medical and education, is not tied to residency.  Off-reserve status people still get those benefits.

Tax-free status and housing assistance are pretty substantial perks.

QuoteAnd even with those supposed 'incentives', there are more status people living off reserve than on, and the numbers keep growing.

"Supposed" incentives? Tax-free status is "supposedly" an incentive now?  :D

No wonder - the reserves are thoroughly disfunctional places to live, those ambitious for their futures can't be bribed to stay there, even with a hefty bribe.

QuoteIMHO, the troubles on reserves have much more to do with poor attitudes towards education combined with poor local governance than they do with the Indian Act.

And by the way, all the 'modern' land claims agreement have included provisions doing away with the tax exemption.  That includes the Final Settlements in the Yukon Territory (where we don't have reserves anyways).

See, the difference between us is that you don't see that the sort of centralized government planning and incentives mandated by the Indian Act are part of the problem; you seem to see them as ameliorating the problem, albeit unsuccessfully.

To my mind, it is practically a poster-child for why even positive ("positive" defined as providing benefits for a favoured group defined by race, rather than seeking to impose disadvantages on a disfavoured race) official racism, carried out with the best of intentions, results in bad unintended consequences -- in this case, exacebating the plight of the very people it was intended to help. 

(It should be noted that in some cases, provided it is mild, "negative' racism has the opposite unintended consequence of actually giving the disfavored group a leg-up: Jews have often benefited from this effect, and more recently, Chinese in SE Asia).

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 16, 2010, 04:23:17 PM
Tax breaks were never meant as incentives of anything. They were the logical outcome of treating the Natives as non-citizens. Other financial help stemmed from the gradual transformation of former payments of food and cloth given as part of alliances and treaties, which, through pressure from Indian affairs who thought it was too much to manage, were transformed into cash payments.

The issue is whether they are a good idea to continue or not. Their historical origins are interesting, but not relevant for the question of whether they are helping or harming those who are the intended recipients.

They are relevant because it is all the difference, which you play with yourself, between entitlement and help. It is the difference between Canadian citizen like all the others, but who happened to be the recipient of special help, and Canadians citizen who are *not* like the others, as per status recognized through historical vicissitudes.

The issue therefore is whether the Canadian government is abiding by what might deem its responsibility and what is essentially a grace. You use the word incentives as if it was part of a policy to do something *for* Natives, for their own good (again, regardless of what their own wish might be). Natives might see it as something which is owed to them, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. Hence the need to re-open treaties and not simply to decide by fiat what is supposed to be good for them.

Malthus - you can't own real property on a reserve.  So the supposed "tax free" status of a reserve vis-a-vis property is a mirage - you don't own it, so you'd never have to worry about taxes either.

There are some lucky indians for whom avoiding tax on the reserves is a great thing.  But given that most of the reserves make the groups of shacks I saw in Belize look like a nice, middle-class suburb, I would think that it would be better to have them move on.  Ultimately, the only way that we can give the Indian self-respect is to seize all their land, compensate them for it, and scatter them to the winds.

In a true civilization, there can only be one culture.

Are you SERIOUS Neil?

All the great civilizations of the world have been multi-cultural.

Even the British and French Empires of yesteryear had several cultural groups within.

QUIT trolling about things you know nothing about.

It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

Oh well nevermind then :P

Carry on Neil :P

The "Great" Civilisations have not been multi-cultural. What they all have in common is cultural vibrancy. They open themselves up to ideas from abroad, which they make their own and then re-export those new ideas (often in the form of invading armies).

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 02:04:49 AM
It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

No, it wasn't.  I suspect that transplanting "white culture" would have been a fairly foreign concept to the Portuguese and British at the time.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2010, 03:00:22 AM

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 02:04:49 AM
It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

No, it wasn't.  I suspect that transplanting "white culture" would have been a fairly foreign concept to the Portuguese and British at the time.

Disagree.  Getting the local elites to adopt the imperial power's culture was a goal of all the imperial powers.  They wanted the elites to be more loyal to the imperial elites than the colonies' masses.  See India, Rwanda, the Philippines, Algeria, etc.

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2010, 05:33:14 PM
Malthus - you can't own real property on a reserve.  So the supposed "tax free" status of a reserve vis-a-vis property is a mirage - you don't own it, so you'd never have to worry about taxes either.

Odd that the association of Chiefs believes different. Perhaps they know something about the matter?

In any event, I assume you are not claiming folks can't *buy* stuff on a reserve, and you still don't pay GST or PST on that - for low-income folks that may be a more important incentive than the income tax break, or a break on real property tax.

And funny you should mention this:

QuoteBut every other benefit, such as medical and education, is not tied to residency.  Off-reserve status people still get those benefits.

Globe editorial today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/for-students-both-on-and-off-reserves/article1502728/

QuoteFor students both on and off reserves

...
Those aboriginals who have already moved off-reserve (or come from families that did so) often cannot access most of the assistance.
...

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 16, 2010, 05:26:37 PM
They are relevant because it is all the difference, which you play with yourself, between entitlement and help. It is the difference between Canadian citizen like all the others, but who happened to be the recipient of special help, and Canadians citizen who are *not* like the others, as per status recognized through historical vicissitudes.

Oh, I'm well aware of the latter issue: the existance of a class of "special" citizens, defined by race and entitled to special privileges, is the anomaly under our laws that I am attacking.

As I said before, no-one would for a moment support the existence of a special, racially-defined caste in Canadian society unless membership was defined as a privilege rather than a penalty (as it was for a long time). If for example I was to say that Blacks were not "real" citizens, but rather some inferior species of citizen, who are not entitled to the full protection of Canadian laws no matter where they were born or how long they have lived here, no-one would support that whether the social policy reason for it was good or bad, and no matter what historical imperatives created that situation.

Cast it as a privilege complete with financial benefits and of course the situation changes - to outward appearances. However, many of the "privileges" are actually penalties in disguise (for example, more lenient sentences for aboriginal offenders can act to the detriment of their victims - most often, aboriginal women and children); and, somewhat counter-intuitively, the provision of many of the privileges has the perverse effect, described above, of actually making the situation of the supposed beneficiaries worse.

Racial discrimination has proved to be not a good policy even when that discrimination is perceived by its objects as wholly positive and justified by history.

QuoteThe issue therefore is whether the Canadian government is abiding by what might deem its responsibility and what is essentially a grace. You use the word incentives as if it was part of a policy to do something *for* Natives, for their own good (again, regardless of what their own wish might be). Natives might see it as something which is owed to them, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. Hence the need to re-open treaties and not simply to decide by fiat what is supposed to be good for them.

Well, in point of fact many natives are comming to the conclusion that the Indian Act and the whole apparatus is part of their problem - and IMO they are of course right.

But that being said, assume all native people think that they are owed special racial status. Even if that were true, it does not justify continuing special racial status for them. That goes ten-fold where to do so is to actively harm their interests, in effect trapping them in a cycle of dependance and poverty. It is poor in terms of basic ethics and morality to treat racial groups (a wholly ficticious and arbitrary catagorization, as the current battle over defining "who is a status Indian" makes obvious) as legally different. It is also bad policy, because it doesn't help the objects of this government largesse - rather, it harms them.

About the only thing going for it is that some people believe that they are "owed" it due to treaties signed by "their" ancestors (I use "scare quotes" because, as noted above, the same people are also likely to deny that *other* Canadians, who trace their "racial" ancestry differently, are "owed" anything!)   

Well-put, Malthus.  I agree 100%.  There cannot be a resolution to the problem, though, so long as people don't recognize that this is a problem.

Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2010, 09:04:02 AM
If for example I was to say that Blacks were not "real" citizens, but rather some inferior species of citizen, who are not entitled to the full protection of Canadian laws no matter where they were born or how long they have lived here, no-one would support that whether the social policy reason for it was good or bad, and no matter what historical imperatives created that situation.

Change "Blacks" to "Muslims" and it seems pretty close to what Grallon argues.  Granted, "Muslim" isn't a race or ethnicity.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 16, 2010, 02:13:07 PMWhat identity did becoming status under that Act give him?

It didn't give him identity, it gave him formal recognition of his identity.  Since he lives off the reserve, it means he could move back to live there if he so chose (which I don't think he will, but the option remains) and it means that he has a ready and easy answer for those who tell him "you're not a real Indian"; he can say "yeah I am, I got the status to prove it."

That said, we didn't speak super in depth about it, and it is some years back, so I don't want to overstate it.  It could, perhaps, all have been about access to benefits, I don't know, but when we spoke about it it was never in those terms.  But I recall that when it happened, he went back to has band and spent some time with them as well; so I think it's more of a matter of being recognized by his people as one of them, rather than being recognized by the government; the "status card" was a bureaucratic mark of the recognition, not the end goal.

For myself, dealing with Denmark's rules on citizenship and how that works with my Canadian life, I can say that my decision not to become a citizen (at least) has more to do with identity issues than cold calculations of benefits (though they're part of it too).  Thus it's fairly easy for me to believe that there are similar issues in play for someone Native; and to be frank I think it's more intense given the history around it all.  The fact that there are priviliges and benefits involved does, of course affect it too.

On a practical level, they're nice to have, but on an identity and emotional level being repeatedly denied something that someone else gets for being something you consider yourself to be has an impact.  Going to the store to buy something, and your buddy doesn't have to pay GST because he's Native but you do because you're not is a constant reminder; knowing that you can't move in with your mom to take care of her when she gets old, because you're not allowed to live on the reserve, while your buddy growing up can move in and take care of his dad because he is allowed means something beyond the concrete practical situation.  At least it would to me.

Gah, what a mess.

http://www.owjn.org/owjn_2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235&Itemid=107

Reading this article makes *my* head hurt, and I'm a lawyer. How is the average Aboriginal woman supposed to know what her legal rights *are*?

Naturally, I have always been of the opinion that it was contrary to the basic notion of the rule of law for different folks to have different legal rights depending on their ancestry.

The end result of violating this basic notion - displayed in spades in this article - appears to be utter incoherence, where the individual cannot determine with any sort of predictability and certainty what their rights even are, let alone seek to enforce them.

QuoteThree or more different sets of laws may apply to Aboriginal women: Matrimonial property on reserve as an example

The ongoing controversy over matrimonial property on reserves provides a good illustration of the complex web of laws that govern different groups of Aboriginal women in different ways.

Women living on reserves (whether they have Status or not) do not have access to the protection of provincial family laws about the "matrimonial home." If a woman shares a home with an abusive partner and that home is on a reserve, she cannot bring a claim for exclusive possession under the provincial Family Law Act.

Why not? Because reserves are lands that are governed by federal legislation, namely the Indian Act. The Indian Act does not say anything about family property (known as "matrimonial property") and, in 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that provincial laws (including the Family Law Act) do not apply to reserve land.

In addition, the First Nation or Band Council may have passed laws about matrimonial property on reserves. These laws are different from Band to Band and Nation to Nation.

I knew the situation was bad, but not that it was this bad.

Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2010, 09:04:02 AMAbout the only thing going for it is that some people believe that they are "owed" it due to treaties signed by "their" ancestors (I use "scare quotes" because, as noted above, the same people are also likely to deny that *other* Canadians, who trace their "racial" ancestry differently, are "owed" anything!)

So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Quote from: grumblerWell-put, Malthus.  I agree 100%.  There cannot be a resolution to the problem, though, so long as people don't recognize that this is a problem.

I don't think anyone denies there's a problem.  I think the difference lies in whether you believe drastic changes should be applied for "their own good" or whether you think a solution is only viable if the various Native people affected by it buy into the solution.

To be honest, I think Malthus' arguments are fairly solid, but they should be made to the various Native groups because they're the ones who need to be convinced (or not).  It's when the argument is made to the rest of society, in the context of "here's how we should change the system for Native people" that I have a problem.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2010, 03:00:22 AM

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 02:04:49 AM
It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

No, it wasn't.  I suspect that transplanting "white culture" would have been a fairly foreign concept to the Portuguese and British at the time.

Errr, I didn't say they had represented some single universal "white culture", only that each of these white countries had its own dominant culture that it imposed.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 10:21:31 AM
So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

Well at least Grumbler agrees with you. :P

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
It didn't give him identity, it gave him formal recognition of his identity.  Since he lives off the reserve, it means he could move back to live there if he so chose (which I don't think he will, but the option remains) and it means that he has a ready and easy answer for those who tell him "you're not a real Indian"; he can say "yeah I am, I got the status to prove it."

I dont think we are saying anything different.  He wanted his status confirmed so that he could live on reserve - one of the main benefits and pitfalls of the Act.

It is important to understand the "not real Indian" slur in context.  It was probably said by people who were enjoying the full dole given by the Act and a comment on his inability to take advantage us such benefits.

It is actually a sad comment on aboriginal culture that someone feels they need to obtain a stamp of approval by the government to be accepted by their community.  This is likely one of the reasons many Native leaders wish to have the whole thing abolished so that they can have greater autonomy within their own communities.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 10:21:31 AM
So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

"The white man?"  "the Native people?"

Tell me that you said this in jest, because if you can seriously use hyperbolic terms like "the white man" then there isn't much that you can discuss rationally.

QuoteThis time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Which unilateral action do you object to?  No one is arguing for a unilateral action that i know of.

QuoteI don't think anyone denies there's a problem.  I think the difference lies in whether you believe drastic changes should be applied for "their own good" or whether you think a solution is only viable if the various Native people affected by it buy into the solution.

The problem is that there is not a thing called "the Native people" - as you note, there are various native peoples involved, some descended from various "First nation" people in some regard, and some not.  The problem isn't one about "the White Man versus the Red Man," it is about Canadians and how they view each other.  The US suffers from the same problem, though to a much lesser extent.

The bottom line, though, is that  every Canadian has a voice in this.  It isn't the preserve of just some people based on their ancestry.  The problem has to acknowledge that privileges were created by treaty, and that compensation must be offered for the abandonment of those privileges, but unless the privileges themselves are acknowledged as part of the problem, it won't be solved.

QuoteTo be honest, I think Malthus' arguments are fairly solid, but they should be made to the various Native groups because they're the ones who need to be convinced (or not).  It's when the argument is made to the rest of society, in the context of "here's how we should change the system for Native people" that I have a problem.

My problem is that I see this as an issue that is within the purview of society at large.  The contract isn't between some abstract concept of government and what you call "Native people," it is between the government acting on behalf of all Canadian citizens and some chiefs acting on behalf of their various tribes/bands/nations.  That contract is what has to go.  Canadian people should just be Canadian people under the law, and any identities, culture, etc should be maintained of their own free will and not by virtue of some small group's determination of what it means to be an Algonquin, or whatever.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:51:57 AM

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 10:21:31 AM
So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

I think there is a very large middle ground.  The Indian Act can be abolished while at the same time honouring treaties.  The difficult part is upholding the honour of the Crown (as that term has been defined in the jurisprudence) by negotiating treaties where they currently do not exist.

However, as I said before, I dont have a great degree of confidence that this kind of treaty making will actually occur.  So we are again faced with the moral question.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 10:09:40 AMOn a practical level, they're nice to have, but on an identity and emotional level being repeatedly denied something that someone else gets for being something you consider yourself to be has an impact.  Going to the store to buy something, and your buddy doesn't have to pay GST because he's Native but you do because you're not is a constant reminder; knowing that you can't move in with your mom to take care of her when she gets old, because you're not allowed to live on the reserve, while your buddy growing up can move in and take care of his dad because he is allowed means something beyond the concrete practical situation.  At least it would to me.

Incidentally, this is exactly how gay people feel about not being able to marry their loved ones.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:51:57 AM
Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

I don't favor taking away anyone's "rights," but I don't think that privileges granted under a treaty really create "rights" in the sense we normally use the term, anyway.  Nothing is sacred about a treaty, any more than any other kind of contract.  Obviously, if you are going to scrap the treaty, you have to offer compensation.

I guess what stick in my craw about barrister or Jacob's argument is the idea that, because people once upon a time thought that the "Native people" or "First Nations" (or whatever term you choose) were not ever going to be Canadians, that idea should still be granted credence today, simply because it was decided once upon a time that the non-Canadian status "very explicitly w[as] meant to apply to the descendents [sic] of those people." It is the legacy of that policy which has left the FN people who have stayed out of the mainstream so poor.  Time to accept them as fully equal Canadians, and to phase out laws that say or imply they are not.

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2010, 11:23:35 AM
There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

Fortunately there is a well-established body of precedent for drawing these kinds of lines ("octoroons") and implementing these kinds of restrictions: the southern American states in the era of Jim Crow.

Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2010, 09:04:02 AM
Oh, I'm well aware of the latter issue: the existance of a class of "special" citizens, defined by race and entitled to special privileges, is the anomaly under our laws that I am attacking.

But that was my point to begin with: historically, the existence of Natives has always required to put their status in parenthesis, because they were *not* citizens then and are *not* citizens-like-others now. This is why history matters, and why the ahistory legalistic approach you are taking needs to erase and ignore the specificities of the Natives problem.

Should you start with questions such as "Why should Canada's law apply to the Natives ?", you enter a realm of blurry definitions, which in turned rely on historical elaborations (such as State, sovereignty, Nation) that were precisely constructed to keep out certain groups - such as Natives. You end up either grossly distorting conceptions of social contract, difforming the effect of Might, or legitimizing a conquest which, in fact never really took place.

The question therefore, is not whether the Indian Act is a good thing: I don't think anyone, whether Native or White, argues that anymore, and I think we can safely store that away for the purpose of discussion. We can of course argue whether or not the current incarnations of the Indian Act create dependency, or whether or not reserves are a good thing. But the question underpinning all of this, and I thought that was the point of the discussion, is whether or not Natives should be awarded special status and, if the answer is yes given the history behind it, what should be the best way to handle that in a modern society. Quite frankly, my experiences with Natives tell me, as BB remarked, that while they definitely answer yes, they are debating the second part much like we are.

The answer they usually do *not* give, is one where Native identity should be dissolved amongst the myriad of other immigrant / constitutive identities. This seem to be the answer you want to give: given all the problems of the Indian Act, let's deal away with Indian status altogether. This is a sure way to get Natives united to decry such an approach. And, in a way, Grallon is right: this constitutes a litmus test for Canada's vaunted multiculturalism. While Quebec had the political strength to fight back such a dissolution, Natives could be theoretically disregarded, their status dissolved without their consent; and while Canadian identity could safely be defined without much regard to Quebec, treatment of Natives *and* multiculturalism have been put forward as distinctive of Canadian identity.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 10:53:22 AM
My problem is that I see this as an issue that is within the purview of society at large.  The contract isn't between some abstract concept of government and what you call "Native people," it is between the government acting on behalf of all Canadian citizens and some chiefs acting on behalf of their various tribes/bands/nations.  That contract is what has to go.  Canadian people should just be Canadian people under the law, and any identities, culture, etc should be maintained of their own free will and not by virtue of some small group's determination of what it means to be an Algonquin, or whatever.

The difficulty with this view is that the treaties that were made were not a form of agreement made between a soveriegn government and its citizens.  All of the early treaties I am aware of were made between two soveriegn parties - hence the name of the document recording the document -  a Treaty.   As a result Treaties have far greater legal importance then a mere contract.  Treaties invoke a concept in law known as the honour of the Crown.  Simply put a contract can be breached a Treaty cannot.

Unlike the experience in the US many of the Treaties made in what was to become Canadian territory did not involve conquest.  They were instead Treaties of mutual assistance.  And as we all know the British, who made the early Treaties, benefited a great deal from them.  As just one example of this, arguably it was because of Native assistance and most notably under Tecumseh that the Americans were turned back in the war of 1812.

Because of this special historical importance of Treaties in Canada our legal tradition has always provided special recognition for treaty rights, even before they were enshrined in our Charter.  It is a pratical impossibility to do away with them.   

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:51:57 AM
Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

But a treaty presumes you are dealing with a sovereign; whereas the structure of the Indian Acts (as described within these threads - I confess to no independent knowledge at all) presumes we are dealing with a dependent population defined by racial classification being submitted (albeit in an arguably "beneficial" way) to the supervisiory authority of another sovereign. 

If Canada is going to serious about "honoring treaties" than it needs to recognize FN independence and treat them like real sovereigns.  If it isn't going to do that, the reality is that the treaty structure is just a polite(?) fiction and Indian affairs are a matter of state policy like any other. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:14:42 AM
The difficulty with this view is that the treaties that were made were not a form of agreement made between a soveriegn government and its citizens.  All of the early treaties I am aware of were made between two soveriegn parties - hence the name of the document recording the document -  a Treaty. 

Exactly, but as one of the parties is no longer a sovereign (or recognized as such) the treaties no longer have any force or meaning.  It is incoherent to have a treaty with a group of people that are subjected to one's own sovereign authority.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 11:15:49 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:51:57 AM
Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

But a treaty presumes you are dealing with a sovereign; whereas the structure of the Indian Acts (as described within these threads - I confess to no independent knowledge at all) presumes we are dealing with a dependent population defined by racial classification being submitted (albeit in an arguably "beneficial" way) to the supervisiory authority of another sovereign. 

If Canada is going to serious about "honoring treaties" than it needs to recognize FN independence and treat them like real sovereigns.  If it isn't going to do that, the reality is that the treaty structure is just a polite(?) fiction and Indian affairs are a matter of state policy like any other.

You have identified the issue that I think is the solution.  The honour of the Crown would be better upheld if the treaties were honoured and Government got out of the business of regulating the lives of the Natives as a separate group.

As I said earlier the sticking point are the Natives who had their land taken without treaty.  Unfortunately there was a fellow in B.C. by the name of Douglas in the early 1800s who thought treaties were a waste of time and we are now trying to fix the mess he left.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 11:18:59 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:14:42 AM
The difficulty with this view is that the treaties that were made were not a form of agreement made between a soveriegn government and its citizens.  All of the early treaties I am aware of were made between two soveriegn parties - hence the name of the document recording the document -  a Treaty. 

Exactly, but as one of the parties is no longer a sovereign (or recognized as such) the treaties no longer have any force or meaning.  It is incoherent to have a treaty with a group of people that are subjected to one's own sovereign authority.

That postion has been attempted and rejected by our Courts.  It a concept known in the law as extinguishment.  It was argued in a case known as Delgamouk (sp?).  The argument was accepted at trial but the rejected at both the B.C. Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of Canada.

If the extinguishment argument had been accepted then the positions you and Grumbler are stating (that these are mere contracts that no longer have force) would be a simple way to deal with the matter.  One of the great attractions of the extinguishment position.  But the law did not develop in that way.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:20:42 AM
As I said earlier the sticking point are the Natives who had their land taken without treaty.  Unfortunately there was a fellow in B.C. by the name of Douglas in the early 1800s who thought treaties were a waste of time and we are now trying to fix the mess he left.

Or, in the East, the nations that were under relationships governed by mutual oral agreements (Algonquians, Innus), those who were part of the "domiciliés" (Hurons, Mohawks, Abenakis) and those with whom various documents had been signed for punctual uses, which are now given a quasi (or sometimes full) treaty interpretation (Mi'kmaq)

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:23:51 AMDelgamouk (sp?). 

Delgamuuk'w

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:23:51 AM
If the extinguishment argument had been accepted then the positions you and Grumbler are stating (that these are mere contracts that no longer have force) would be a simple way to deal with the matter.  One of the great attractions of the extinguishment position.  But the law did not develop in that way.

As well it should, considering that Natives were not, then and now, put in a position to influence the development of both Canadian law and international law (one only needs to re-read the early writers of international law to see why...).

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 17, 2010, 11:26:19 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:20:42 AM
As I said earlier the sticking point are the Natives who had their land taken without treaty.  Unfortunately there was a fellow in B.C. by the name of Douglas in the early 1800s who thought treaties were a waste of time and we are now trying to fix the mess he left.

Or, in the East, the nations that were under relationships governed by mutual oral agreements (Algonquians, Innus), those who were part of the "domiciliés" (Hurons, Mohawks, Abenakis) and those with whom various documents had been signed for punctual uses, which are now given a quasi (or sometimes full) treaty interpretation (Mi'kmaq)

Interesting.  There is something coming close to this in the case of the Nisga'a.  But in their case it was not so much an oral agreement as it is clear that they continually asserted their independence and frequently attempted to negotiate a treaty but B.C. and Canada were never interested in talking to them until about 25 years ago.

It was facts like this that made the extinguishment argument difficult to sustain.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 17, 2010, 11:27:36 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 11:23:51 AMDelgamouk (sp?). 

Delgamuuk'w

Merci.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 17, 2010, 11:06:33 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2010, 09:04:02 AM
Oh, I'm well aware of the latter issue: the existance of a class of "special" citizens, defined by race and entitled to special privileges, is the anomaly under our laws that I am attacking.

But that was my point to begin with: historically, the existence of Natives has always required to put their status in parenthesis, because they were *not* citizens then and are *not* citizens-like-others now. This is why history matters, and why the ahistory legalistic approach you are taking needs to erase and ignore the specificities of the Natives problem.

I don't get your point. You say that this was your point to begin with - i.e., that racial benefits are wrong - why then are you seemingly arguing for the opposite?

To my mind the fact that these racial preferences have a deep-seated historical basis is an interesting practical problem - namely, it makes it more difficult to simply erase them. It does not change the fact that they need to be erased.

I recognize that, practically, it may be legally impossible or very difficult to root out the damage. That does not change the unfortunate fact that it is necessary.

QuoteShould you start with questions such as "Why should Canada's law apply to the Natives ?", you enter a realm of blurry definitions, which in turned rely on historical elaborations (such as State, sovereignty, Nation) that were precisely constructed to keep out certain groups - such as Natives. You end up either grossly distorting conceptions of social contract, difforming the effect of Might, or legitimizing a conquest which, in fact never really took place.

See, I see a native woman living on a reserve who cannot get sole possession of her matrimonial home - a right accorded non-native women under our law - away from her abusive husband; to me it is the mess of laws that require this (see my post above) that is the "gross distortion".

I imagine attempting to explain to this woman that her plight is a historical necessity; her abuser must live in her house, see, in order to avoid legitimizing the non-existent conquest of Natives by the Brits a coupla hundred years ago. It's a matter of racial honour!

To my mind at least, I'd rather do violence to abstract historical concepts than to real, existing people today.

QuoteThe question therefore, is not whether the Indian Act is a good thing: I don't think anyone, whether Native or White, argues that anymore, and I think we can safely store that away for the purpose of discussion. We can of course argue whether or not the current incarnations of the Indian Act create dependency, or whether or not reserves are a good thing. But the question underpinning all of this, and I thought that was the point of the discussion, is whether or not Natives should be awarded special status and, if the answer is yes given the history behind it, what should be the best way to handle that in a modern society. Quite frankly, my experiences with Natives tell me, as BB remarked, that while they definitely answer yes, they are debating the second part much like we are.

Sure, pretty well everyone would "like" to have some confirmation that their racial group is special and deserving. The problem is that, in practice, giving in to this all-too-human tendency has proven disasterous in practice.

QuoteThe answer they usually do *not* give, is one where Native identity should be dissolved amongst the myriad of other immigrant / constitutive identities. This seem to be the answer you want to give: given all the problems of the Indian Act, let's deal away with Indian status altogether. This is a sure way to get Natives united to decry such an approach. And, in a way, Grallon is right: this constitutes a litmus test for Canada's vaunted multiculturalism. While Quebec had the political strength to fight back such a dissolution, Natives could be theoretically disregarded, their status dissolved without their consent; and while Canadian identity could safely be defined without much regard to Quebec, treatment of Natives *and* multiculturalism have been put forward as distinctive of Canadian identity.

Nothing about not being defined as legally-different non-citizens, unequal before the law, is *required* for people to have a grasp of their own cultural identity.

If the threat is that those already with the status will react badly to having it taken away, that may well be true, but again the practical difficulties do not change the fact that it is necessary.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 10:52:13 AMI dont think we are saying anything different.  He wanted his status confirmed so that he could live on reserve - one of the main benefits and pitfalls of the Act.

But he doesn't live in the reserve.  He can live on the reserve if he choses, but whatever moved him to get his status, he still lives here.  So while the main material benefit is that he can live on the reserve, he is not doing so now nor does he plan on it (I think), so it doesn't seem reasonable to consider that his main motivation.

QuoteIt is important to understand the "not real Indian" slur in context.  It was probably said by people who were enjoying the full dole given by the Act and a comment on his inability to take advantage us such benefits.

Yes of course that's a component, but it's not the "important" part at all.  Focusing on the dole aspect is missing the point I was trying to make.  Completely.  It's about belonging and not belonging, not material benefits, even if material benefits end up being the marker of the belonging or not.

QuoteIt is actually a sad comment on aboriginal culture that someone feels they need to obtain a stamp of approval by the government to be accepted by their community.  This is likely one of the reasons many Native leaders wish to have the whole thing abolished so that they can have greater autonomy within their own communities.

Yep.  It's pretty messy; I'd like to think that if Native leaders do wish to abolish the whole thing it will eventually be abolished.  My main point is that this should be driven by the Native peoples themselves.

Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2010, 11:53:17 AM
To my mind at least, I'd rather do violence to abstract historical concepts than to real, existing people today.

You are caricaturing. Most of our principles derive from historical concepts (which in my mind are no less, no more abstract than concepts of law or equality you seem to want to argue from), and many of them do harm to real existing people today, in the name of such concepts. Just like we are capable of believing in abstract ideas (e.g. freedom of speech) and somehow come up with practical solutions to pragmatic problems (e.g. hate speech).

...and indeed, I wonder if, in the name of concepts, you might not yourself be willing to do violence to real, existing people today (how exactly is the abolition of Indian status going to help people living in reserves today ?)

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 10:53:22 AM
Which unilateral action do you object to?  No one is arguing for a unilateral action that i know of.

When Malthus says we should abolish the system, that sounds to me like he's advocating unilateral action, without the buy-in of the Native peoples*.  If he's not, and no one else is, then great :)

*and yes, you are correct, not by "Native peoples" as a monolithic group, but my the individual tribes and bands which makes the whole situation more complicated.

QuoteThe bottom line, though, is that  every Canadian has a voice in this.  It isn't the preserve of just some people based on their ancestry.  The problem has to acknowledge that privileges were created by treaty, and that compensation must be offered for the abandonment of those privileges, but unless the privileges themselves are acknowledged as part of the problem, it won't be solved.

I mostly agree with this, I think; however, the sticking point for me is that when "compensation is offered for the abandonment of those privileges" that the people who are abandoning their priviliges accept that the compensation is fair.

QuoteMy problem is that I see this as an issue that is within the purview of society at large.  The contract isn't between some abstract concept of government and what you call "Native people," it is between the government acting on behalf of all Canadian citizens and some chiefs acting on behalf of their various tribes/bands/nations.  That contract is what has to go.  Canadian people should just be Canadian people under the law, and any identities, culture, etc should be maintained of their own free will and not by virtue of some small group's determination of what it means to be an Algonquin, or whatever.

And this is where I disagree with you and Malthus.  I'm cool with the Algonquin people determining who is Algonquin, and I am okay with them having a unique status within the larger Canadian society.  Similarly, I am okay with the Huu-ay-aht and Toquaht and so on defining themselves and having unique status within Canadian society.  I don't hold this to be some natural injustice that must be corrected, though I recognize that problems can come from it; I am, however, all for attempting to address the problems as they arise on a case by case basis, and I'm also fine with a negotiated move towards dissolution of the various forms of special status, again on a case by case basis, if that is what the various Native groups involved believe is useful for them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 10:55:06 AMI think there is a very large middle ground.  The Indian Act can be abolished while at the same time honouring treaties.  The difficult part is upholding the honour of the Crown (as that term has been defined in the jurisprudence) by negotiating treaties where they currently do not exist.

Sounds reasonable enough, and almost encouraging....

QuoteHowever, as I said before, I dont have a great degree of confidence that this kind of treaty making will actually occur.  So we are again faced with the moral question.

... this less so.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 11:02:17 AMI guess what stick in my craw about barrister or Jacob's argument is the idea that, because people once upon a time thought that the "Native people" or "First Nations" (or whatever term you choose) were not ever going to be Canadians, that idea should still be granted credence today, simply because it was decided once upon a time that the non-Canadian status "very explicitly w[as] meant to apply to the descendents [sic] of those people." It is the legacy of that policy which has left the FN people who have stayed out of the mainstream so poor.  Time to accept them as fully equal Canadians, and to phase out laws that say or imply they are not.

I don't have a problem with that, philosophically.  The problem is how we have that transition in a way that's constructive.

I'm not saying you're arguing for this, but my concern is that going in and saying "you're all Canadians like everyone else now, your Native status is now irrelevant, here's what we've decided to give you in return for it, enjoy your future as regular Canadians now" is high handed and, I suspect, will produce negative outcomes.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 12:13:32 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 11:02:17 AMI guess what stick in my craw about barrister or Jacob's argument is the idea that, because people once upon a time thought that the "Native people" or "First Nations" (or whatever term you choose) were not ever going to be Canadians, that idea should still be granted credence today, simply because it was decided once upon a time that the non-Canadian status "very explicitly w[as] meant to apply to the descendents [sic] of those people." It is the legacy of that policy which has left the FN people who have stayed out of the mainstream so poor.  Time to accept them as fully equal Canadians, and to phase out laws that say or imply they are not.

I don't have a problem with that, philosophically.  The problem is how we have that transition in a way that's constructive.

I'm not saying you're arguing for this, but my concern is that going in and saying "you're all Canadians like everyone else now, your Native status is now irrelevant, here's what we've decided to give you in return for it, enjoy your future as regular Canadians now" is high handed and, I suspect, will produce negative outcomes.

yep. Nobody likes being told who they are, especially by a faceless bureaucracy.

Fucking Indians.

Wow, I didn't realize Canada was such a mess. It's intriguing (and kinda disturbing) to read. I'm also surprised the Canadian courts do not recognize Canadian government as sovereign over its territory or inhabitants to the extent that is accepted by international law.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:27:51 PM
Wow, I didn't realize Canada was such a mess. It's intriguing (and kinda disturbing) to read. I'm also surprised the Canadian courts do not recognize Canadian government as sovereign over its territory or inhabitants to the extent that is accepted by international law.

:unsure: I think you are missing the point.

I don't think I am. CC or BB stated that the Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the "treaties" concluded by Canada with a "sovereign" which no longer exists (and which impose certain limitations on a way Canada can exercise its sovereignty over some parts of its territory and/or certain of its inhabitants) remain valid. That's contrary to any concept of sovereignty I've heard of.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:31:37 PM
I don't think I am. CC or BB stated that the Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the "treaties" concluded by Canada with a "sovereign" which no longer exists (and which impose certain limitations on a way Canada can exercise its sovereignty over some parts of its territory and/or certain of its inhabitants) remain valid. That's contrary to any concept of sovereignty I've heard of.

Luckily you aren't the final authority on the definition of the word sovereign.

In Canada each province, territory, and first nation have various degrees of sovereignty within Canada. Power is shared, sometimes not to the liking of various groups within said regions/groups. How is this hard to understand? People disagree about who should have power, who makes rules. How is this different from regional/cultural squabbles in any country?

The difficult part as always is trying to find some sort of consensus. It's all about compromise. Why? Because not compromising has worked out horribly for those not at the top of the power structure. Which is what happens pretty much everywhere.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 17, 2010, 12:39:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:31:37 PM
I don't think I am. CC or BB stated that the Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the "treaties" concluded by Canada with a "sovereign" which no longer exists (and which impose certain limitations on a way Canada can exercise its sovereignty over some parts of its territory and/or certain of its inhabitants) remain valid. That's contrary to any concept of sovereignty I've heard of.

Luckily you aren't the final authority on the definition of the word sovereign.

In Canada each province, territory, and first nation have various degrees of sovereignty within Canada. Power is shared, sometimes not to the liking of various groups within said regions/groups. How is this hard to understand? People disagree about who should have power, who makes rules. How is this different from regional/cultural squabbles in any country?

The difficult part as always is trying to find some sort of consensus. It's all about compromise. Why? Because not compromising has worked out horribly for those not at the top of the power structure. Which is what happens pretty much everywhere.

It's you who don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is indivisible.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:31:37 PM
I don't think I am. CC or BB stated that the Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the "treaties" concluded by Canada with a "sovereign" which no longer exists (and which impose certain limitations on a way Canada can exercise its sovereignty over some parts of its territory and/or certain of its inhabitants) remain valid. That's contrary to any concept of sovereignty I've heard of.

I am not surprised that there are concepts of law you have not heard of.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:41:17 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 17, 2010, 12:39:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:31:37 PM
I don't think I am. CC or BB stated that the Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the "treaties" concluded by Canada with a "sovereign" which no longer exists (and which impose certain limitations on a way Canada can exercise its sovereignty over some parts of its territory and/or certain of its inhabitants) remain valid. That's contrary to any concept of sovereignty I've heard of.

Luckily you aren't the final authority on the definition of the word sovereign.

In Canada each province, territory, and first nation have various degrees of sovereignty within Canada. Power is shared, sometimes not to the liking of various groups within said regions/groups. How is this hard to understand? People disagree about who should have power, who makes rules. How is this different from regional/cultural squabbles in any country?

The difficult part as always is trying to find some sort of consensus. It's all about compromise. Why? Because not compromising has worked out horribly for those not at the top of the power structure. Which is what happens pretty much everywhere.

It's you who don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is indivisible.

Nope. wrong. Canada is proof. Ask a Quebecoise.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:41:17 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 17, 2010, 12:39:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:31:37 PM
I don't think I am. CC or BB stated that the Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the "treaties" concluded by Canada with a "sovereign" which no longer exists (and which impose certain limitations on a way Canada can exercise its sovereignty over some parts of its territory and/or certain of its inhabitants) remain valid. That's contrary to any concept of sovereignty I've heard of.

Luckily you aren't the final authority on the definition of the word sovereign.

In Canada each province, territory, and first nation have various degrees of sovereignty within Canada. Power is shared, sometimes not to the liking of various groups within said regions/groups. How is this hard to understand? People disagree about who should have power, who makes rules. How is this different from regional/cultural squabbles in any country?

The difficult part as always is trying to find some sort of consensus. It's all about compromise. Why? Because not compromising has worked out horribly for those not at the top of the power structure. Which is what happens pretty much everywhere.

It's you who don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is indivisible.

You might want to go back and read some international law on the issue of Treaties and how they are to be interpreted.

Also, it is clear you have a limited understanding of the concept of a non Unitary State.

Treaties are a voluntary obligation taken on by a sovereign to another sovereign. If a sovereign ceases to exist, a treaty with such a sovereign is no longer binding (or, in fact, it no longer exist) unless there is another sovereign which is perceived as a successor of a non-existing sovereign.

For example, a treaty between England and Scotland no longer exists, since Scotland no longer exists as a sovereign.

Also, a non-unitary state does not have a different concept of sovereignty. There might be some internal (i.e. constitutional) division of power between various branches and levels of the government, but that does not change the sovereignty of the state (which is external, i.e. applies to relations with other sovereigns).

One could argue that the "treaties" with the first tribes are part of the constitutional system of Canada (and therefore would be subject to such change procedure as provided for by the constitutional system of Canada), but they are not treaties in the international law meaning, as they are not (at least not anymore) between sovereigns.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 12:42:59 PM


Also, it is clear you have a limited understanding of the concept of a non Unitary State.

So do many canadians.  ;)




G.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 12:42:05 PMI am not surprised that there are concepts of law you have not heard of.

:lol:

Martinus has a point.  Canada may have decided that it is going to abide by various obligations formerly contained in treaties with FN tribes, and has even come up with internal legal doctrines ("Honor of the Crown"; (lack of) "extinguishment") to make these obligations operational and binding under domestic law.  I get that and that is a choice that Canadian legislators and judges can and have made.  But it rather confuses matters to treat these obligations as treaties with a sovereign where it is quite clear that the counterparty is not sovereign and in fact is subject to supervision from a Canadian federal functionary.

It's political correctness & guilt.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 12:07:44 PM
When Malthus says we should abolish the system, that sounds to me like he's advocating unilateral action, without the buy-in of the Native peoples*.  If he's not, and no one else is, then great :)

How about this, then:  everyone in Canada gets status as a "Native person" and the whole country is declared to be a reserve for the "Canadian tribe."  All privileges of the Indian Act are applied to everyone equally.

No need to get any "Native peoples" to buy in to this, because they are not affected.

Quote*and yes, you are correct, not by "Native peoples" as a monolithic group, but my the individual tribes and bands which makes the whole situation more complicated.

They are often legally distinct as well; some have been granted sovereign status in the past and some have not, so they cannot all be treated as sovereigns.  But let's leave that for the times when the distinction is important.

QuoteI mostly agree with this, I think; however, the sticking point for me is that when "compensation is offered for the abandonment of those privileges" that the people who are abandoning their priviliges accept that the compensation is fair.

I would hope that this would be a requirement.  Kinda like eminent domain.

QuoteAnd this is where I disagree with you and Malthus.  I'm cool with the Algonquin people determining who is Algonquin, and I am okay with them having a unique status within the larger Canadian society.  Similarly, I am okay with the Huu-ay-aht and Toquaht and so on defining themselves and having unique status within Canadian society.  I don't hold this to be some natural injustice that must be corrected, though I recognize that problems can come from it; I am, however, all for attempting to address the problems as they arise on a case by case basis, and I'm also fine with a negotiated move towards dissolution of the various forms of special status, again on a case by case basis, if that is what the various Native groups involved believe is useful for them.

I am not sure what "unique status within Canadian society" means in this context.  I have no problems with some Algonquin bureaucratic types being able to say who is Algonquin and who is not, just as I have no problem with some Boy Scout bureaucratic types being able to say who is a Boy Scout and who is not.  What I have a problem with is having that bureaucrat be able to grant government-financed benefits without being selected by the government or elected by the people.  Such things always result in corruption and contention.  As long as the "unique status within Canadian society" of the Algonquin or Boy Scouts imposes no burden or disadvantage on those who don't qualify, I share your indifference to the rules of belonging.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 12:13:32 PM
I don't have a problem with that, philosophically.  The problem is how we have that transition in a way that's constructive. 

Precisely.

QuoteI'm not saying you're arguing for this, but my concern is that going in and saying "you're all Canadians like everyone else now, your Native status is now irrelevant, here's what we've decided to give you in return for it, enjoy your future as regular Canadians now" is high handed and, I suspect, will produce negative outcomes.

I am certainly not arguing that anyone should make declarations of irrelevance, and that the concept of just compensation should be abandoned.  Just to clarify (as an amendment to your note that this was not what i was saying).

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 17, 2010, 12:15:56 PM
yep. Nobody likes being told who they are, especially by a faceless bureaucracy.

Yep. that's why any legal definition of "who they are" should be taken away from the faceless bureaucracies in the various tribes. 

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 12:41:17 PM
It's you who don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is indivisible.

:lmfao:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 01:19:06 PM
Martinus has a point.  Canada may have decided that it is going to abide by various obligations formerly contained in treaties with FN tribes, and has even come up with internal legal doctrines ("Honor of the Crown"; (lack of) "extinguishment") to make these obligations operational and binding under domestic law.  I get that and that is a choice that Canadian legislators and judges can and have made.  But it rather confuses matters to treat these obligations as treaties with a sovereign where it is quite clear that the counterparty is not sovereign and in fact is subject to supervision from a Canadian federal functionary.

That's a separate issue.  Shared sovereignty is legally tenable (and exists in relations between the US federal and state governments).

I agree with you that the concept of tribal sovereignty in Canada seems moot (as it is in the US nowadays), but understand that the courts don't always see things as clearly as outsiders do!  :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 01:19:06 PM
Martinus has a point.  Canada may have decided that it is going to abide by various obligations formerly contained in treaties with FN tribes, and has even come up with internal legal doctrines ("Honor of the Crown"; (lack of) "extinguishment") to make these obligations operational and binding under domestic law.  I get that and that is a choice that Canadian legislators and judges can and have made.  But it rather confuses matters to treat these obligations as treaties with a sovereign where it is quite clear that the counterparty is not sovereign and in fact is subject to supervision from a Canadian federal functionary.

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. 

There are two ways, it has been argued, in which the First Nations lost their soveriegnty.  The first is by way of conquest (Marti's example of Scotland being conquered by England) and the second is extinguishment (the notion that if a First Nation was soveriegn at the time the Treaty it isnt any longer because it no longer has the capacity to exercise sovereign rights)

The responses to these two points are lengthy and I am not doing them justice by this brief summary, but with that caveat out of the way, in brief, the response is:

a) In relation to the conquest notion, many bands in the West were never conquered (the Nisga'a being an excellent example) and never ceded sovereign control over their lands.  Those bands who did sign treaties further say that they also were never conquered but that the Treaties which they signed (or as Oex points out the ones that were made orally) were made between equal partners.

b) In response to the extinguishment issue, many bands will argue that they have never given up their sovereign rights.  Those who have not signed treaties or made oral agreements will say that they have always asserted their soverign rights.  Again the Nisga'a are an excellent example of such a group.  Further those that have signed treaties or have oral agreements amounting to a treaty will say that those agreements expressly protect and confirm their sovereignty and so it is a little underhanded to suggest (as some have tried to do) that simply becuase the First Nation has followed their treaty obligations that they have also given up their soveriegnty.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 01:39:43 PM
How about this, then:  everyone in Canada gets status as a "Native person" and the whole country is declared to be a reserve for the "Canadian tribe."  All privileges of the Indian Act are applied to everyone equally.

No need to get any "Native peoples" to buy in to this, because they are not affected.

Well, as you yourself point out just below here, various Native groups have different agreements, priviliges and legal statuses so if we wish to make everyone in Canada exactly the same, the status of some Native groups would have to change.

QuoteI would hope that this would be a requirement.  Kinda like eminent domain.

As long as it is, then I'm good.  I don't know enough about eminent domain to take anything from your comparison.

QuoteI am not sure what "unique status within Canadian society" means in this context.  I have no problems with some Algonquin bureaucratic types being able to say who is Algonquin and who is not, just as I have no problem with some Boy Scout bureaucratic types being able to say who is a Boy Scout and who is not.  What I have a problem with is having that bureaucrat be able to grant government-financed benefits without being selected by the government or elected by the people.  Such things always result in corruption and contention.  As long as the "unique status within Canadian society" of the Algonquin or Boy Scouts imposes no burden or disadvantage on those who don't qualify, I share your indifference to the rules of belonging.

"Unique status within Canadian society" means, in this context, amongst other things that they have various rights that other Canadians do not, like the ones owed them due to treaty obligations.

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.

That being said Ultimate sovereigntyhas long been held to belong to the Crown.  SOme native groups have pushed for things like passports, immunity from prosecution, membership in the UN - Canada has resoundingly held that Canada is one nation.

As CC said, it appears Marty is unfamiliar with a non-unitary state.  When I stand up in court I formally represent "The Queen in right of Canada".  It is not unheard of for another Prosecutor to stand up beside me who represents "The Queen in right of Yukon".  Both are sovereigns (as opposed to a municipality, which is merely a delegated pwoer from the province/territory).

That being said I've taken entire courses on aboriginal law.  It really is unique, and even Canadian lawyers have some difficulty wrapping their heads around it.  It's difficult to explain the concepts in just a few lines on an internet chat board.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 01:50:12 PM
I agree with you that the concept of tribal sovereignty in Canada seems moot (as it is in the US nowadays), but understand that the courts don't always see things as clearly as outsiders do!  :P

The differences in the way these issues have been dealt with in the US and Canada is an interesting area of study.  Most people simply brush away the differences by saying that the US used military force whereas the British and then Canada used diplomacy (the war with the Metis being a very notable exception to this notion).

However, I think the question is much more complex then the simple anaysis that the US used guns and Canada used paper.  I think a more useful analysis is why the US used guns and we didnt.  I think a lot turns on the relatively sparce population in Canada (particularly in the West), the signficant role that Native communities played in the history of Canada and perhaps most significantly of all the way in which Natives have been able to create a powerful political voice in the last 40 years.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
That being said I've taken entire courses on aboriginal law.  It really is unique, and even Canadian lawyers have some difficulty wrapping their heads around it.  It's difficult to explain the concepts in just a few lines on an internet chat board.

Agreed.  Part of the problem is that it is developing so quickly.  For example, if you had suggested to me that the duty to accomodate existed after a Final Agreement I would have said you were wrong, until you posted that link of course.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 01:50:12 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 01:19:06 PM
Martinus has a point.  Canada may have decided that it is going to abide by various obligations formerly contained in treaties with FN tribes, and has even come up with internal legal doctrines ("Honor of the Crown"; (lack of) "extinguishment") to make these obligations operational and binding under domestic law.  I get that and that is a choice that Canadian legislators and judges can and have made.  But it rather confuses matters to treat these obligations as treaties with a sovereign where it is quite clear that the counterparty is not sovereign and in fact is subject to supervision from a Canadian federal functionary.

That's a separate issue.  Shared sovereignty is legally tenable (and exists in relations between the US federal and state governments).

The US is involves something different - in the US the People are sovereign and the federal and state governments are limited delegatees.  As between the federal and state governments, the division of authority is clear: within the sphere of those powers delegated to the federal government, the federal government is supreme and the states are subordinate and subject to pre-emption.  Within the sphere of those powers not delegated to the federal government but where state governments can and do act, the federal government has no authority and must respect state action as constitutionally permitted.  Although the term "shared sovereignty" can be and has been sed to describe this situation, that description can be confusing to the extent it doesn't capture the true nature of the hierarchical relationship.

In any event, this is a very different situation from what is going on with Canda and the FN groups.

By the way for whatever it's worth - native rights and treaty rights have since 1982 been entrenched in our constitution as constitutional rights.  Any attempt to unilaterally extinguish those rights would require a constitutional amendment.  So it could be done, but with difficulty.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM
By the way for whatever it's worth - native rights and treaty rights have since 1982 been entrenched in our constitution as constitutional rights.  Any attempt to unilaterally extinguish those rights would require a constitutional amendment.  So it could be done, but with difficulty.

So Canada is a single sovereign state. Good.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
That being said I've taken entire courses on aboriginal law.  It really is unique, and even Canadian lawyers have some difficulty wrapping their heads around it.  It's difficult to explain the concepts in just a few lines on an internet chat board.

To my mind, that complexity is part of the problem.

As pointed out in the article I posted on aboriginal women and the law, the complexity created by the intersection of multiple legal sources is so great that even legal experts are flummoxed by it - the aboriginal women involved, some of the most if not the most impoverished in the country, have little hope of navigating its complexities in such a manner as to know or guarantee their rights (and in some cases, the effect of the intersection is to strip some of them of rights non-native women enjoy as a matter of course under "regular" law - for example, the matrimonial home). 

Again, the whole area is rife with unintended consequences.

Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2010, 03:14:58 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
That being said I've taken entire courses on aboriginal law.  It really is unique, and even Canadian lawyers have some difficulty wrapping their heads around it.  It's difficult to explain the concepts in just a few lines on an internet chat board.

To my mind, that complexity is part of the problem.

As pointed out in the article I posted on aboriginal women and the law, the complexity created by the intersection of multiple legal sources is so great that even legal experts are flummoxed by it - the aboriginal women involved, some of the most if not the most impoverished in the country, have little hope of navigating its complexities in such a manner as to know or guarantee their rights (and in some cases, the effect of the intersection is to strip some of them of rights non-native women enjoy as a matter of course under "regular" law - for example, the matrimonial home). 

Again, the whole area is rife with unintended consequences.

No argument there. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
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. 

My point is they don't have sovereign rights except to the extent the federal Canadian government has chosen to respect them.  Which is proof that the rights in question aren't sovereign at all, because a true sovereign's rights as a sovereign are not conditional on another sovereign's discretion and sufferance.  (Note that under the Indian Act, all covered "bands" (as defined) are placed under the superintendence of a federal minister.  That is not remotely consistent with sovereignty)

This applies regardless of the historical context and regardless of whether a particular individual tribe ever signed a formal instrument of cession. 

The simple test is what would happen if a particular tribe decided (wihtout the consent of the Candian federal authorities) to send and accept ambassadors; allow foreign nations to establish trade missions or base military installations on tribal soil; seek recognitiion from others; declare war; refuse to hand over fugitives to Canada in the absence of a formal extradition treaty; coin money; and any number of fundamental and basic incidents of sovereignty.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 03:17:40 PM
My point is they don't have sovereign rights except to the extent the federal Canadian government has chosen to respect them.  Which is proof that the rights in question aren't sovereign at all, because a true sovereign's rights as a sovereign are not conditional on another sovereign's discretion and sufferance.  (Note that under the Indian Act, all covered "bands" (as defined) are placed under the superintendence of a federal minister.  That is not remotely consistent with sovereignty)

Which is what makes them sui generis.

In some areas they are sovereign, and need not ask for anyone's permission.  But not in others.

Trying to decide whether they are 'sovereign' or 'not sovereign' is hot helpful, as they are somewhere inbetween. 

Here's a link attempting to set out the basic issues in aboriginal law in Canada.

http://www.canadalegal.com/gosite.asp?s=1003

I'm slightly suspicious of the site, but can see no overall errors in this summary, and it does cite many of the proper cases.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 03:29:00 PM
Which is what makes them sui generis.

In some areas they are sovereign, and need not ask for anyone's permission.  But not in others.

Trying to decide whether they are 'sovereign' or 'not sovereign' is hot helpful, as they are somewhere inbetween.

I agree that getting hung up on terminology is not helpful.

I press this seemingly semantic issue for only one reason: that in response to Malthus' argument that the rules with respect to the FN should be revised as a matter of good policy, you and Jacob both responded that one of the objections to such a course of action would be that it would violate the sacroscant status of treaties.  I took that objection as meaning that even if revision would be justifiable and correct as a matter of policy; nonetheless the dishonor inherent in violating a treaty in itself would be reason from refraining from adjusting the policy.

That specific argument did not strike me as persuasive because the treaties are treaties in name only: the decision to recognize them as such is simply another policy decision of the Canadian government (albeit one constitutionalized by the courts) and not inherent in their nature as true treaties between true sovereigns.  The fact is that the decision to give the treaties special status is as much as a national policy decision as the rest of the FN regulatory regime (indeed they are part-and-parcel of each other).

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 02:11:47 PM
Well, as you yourself point out just below here, various Native groups have different agreements, priviliges and legal statuses so if we wish to make everyone in Canada exactly the same, the status of some Native groups would have to change.

If everyone gets every privilege, then this is not an issue.  People who don't want to exercise a privilege wouldn't need to.

QuoteI don't know enough about eminent domain to take anything from your comparison.

ED allows the state to force sales of land (and maybe other things, but land is where we hear about it) for the public good, but requires just compensation for the land taken.  The courts have adjudicated disputes over compensation.

Quote"Unique status within Canadian society" means, in this context, amongst other things that they have various rights that other Canadians do not, like the ones owed them due to treaty obligations.

I guess the problem I have with this is that the treaty obligations were made to a group of people who no longer exist.  Allowing peoples not a party to the treaty to decide who is eligible for the "various rights" obligated by the treaty seems to me to be a recipe for corruption.  You sure that you are okay with this?

I wonder how fast these one culture arguments will die when typically white areas find white culture in the minority.

In a sense, it is almost justice since centuries ago white people poured out in great numbers, displaced people in their homelands, and attempted to force their values on others. Now they find themselves besieged not only by outsiders, but by their enlightened institutions which are slow to react decisively.

The intelligent man can take no pleasure in this, however, because the fall of white culture to minority status/insignificance can only be seen as a step backwards for mankind and unfortunately such a step would very likely lead to a level of social violence not yet witnessed anywhere in the world by mankind.

Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:08:28 PM
I wonder how fast these one culture arguments will die when typically white areas find white culture in the minority.

In a sense, it is almost justice since centuries ago white people poured out in great numbers, displaced people in their homelands, and attempted to force their values on others. Now they find themselves besieged not only by outsiders, but by their enlightened institutions which are slow to react decisively.

The intelligent man can take no pleasure in this, however, because the fall of white culture to minority status/insignificance can only be seen as a step backwards for mankind and unfortunately such a step would very likely lead to a level of social violence not yet witnessed anywhere in the world by mankind.

:tinfoil:

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
Those who have not signed treaties or made oral agreements will say that they have always asserted their soverign rights.  Again the Nisga'a are an excellent example of such a group.

Their sovereign rights are a polite fiction, as they've never defeated Canada in a war.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2010, 03:17:40 PM

My point is they don't have sovereign rights except to the extent the federal Canadian government has chosen to respect them.  Which is proof that the rights in question aren't sovereign at all, because a true sovereign's rights as a sovereign are not conditional on another sovereign's discretion and sufferance.  (Note that under the Indian Act, all covered "bands" (as defined) are placed under the superintendence of a federal minister.  That is not remotely consistent with sovereignty)

This applies regardless of the historical context and regardless of whether a particular individual tribe ever signed a formal instrument of cession. 

The simple test is what would happen if a particular tribe decided (wihtout the consent of the Candian federal authorities) to send and accept ambassadors; allow foreign nations to establish trade missions or base military installations on tribal soil; seek recognitiion from others; declare war; refuse to hand over fugitives to Canada in the absence of a formal extradition treaty; coin money; and any number of fundamental and basic incidents of sovereignty.

It is actually an open question as to whether they have rights indepedant of the recognition they have already gained in the Canadian Courts.  In fact one of grounds argued before our Courts is precisely that their rights are recognized by international law.

It is not possible to state as emphatically as you would wish that their rights only exist to the extent Canadian Courts have recognized them.  Its just that Native leaders have not pursued international Actions - which had been started - seeking declarations that Canada was in violation of its Treaty obligations because decisions by Canadian Courts made those internations Actions unnecessary.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 04:00:26 PM
I guess the problem I have with this is that the treaty obligations were made to a group of people who no longer exist.  Allowing peoples not a party to the treaty to decide who is eligible for the "various rights" obligated by the treaty seems to me to be a recipe for corruption.  You sure that you are okay with this?

What makes you think they no longer exist?

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 04:29:08 PM
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).

Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2010, 04:20:21 PM

Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:08:28 PM
I wonder how fast these one culture arguments will die when typically white areas find white culture in the minority.

In a sense, it is almost justice since centuries ago white people poured out in great numbers, displaced people in their homelands, and attempted to force their values on others. Now they find themselves besieged not only by outsiders, but by their enlightened institutions which are slow to react decisively.

The intelligent man can take no pleasure in this, however, because the fall of white culture to minority status/insignificance can only be seen as a step backwards for mankind and unfortunately such a step would very likely lead to a level of social violence not yet witnessed anywhere in the world by mankind.

:tinfoil:

:tinfoil:

Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:37:04 PM
:tinfoil:

Stop spamming. Thanks.

Fuck you, house boy.

Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:48:48 PM
Fuck you, house boy.

I don't do poors.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 04:32:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 04:29:08 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 05:02:33 PM
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!  :lol:

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

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 05:12:16 PMThe 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.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 05:12:16 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
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.

Well, yeah.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 06:38:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 06:38:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
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?

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 06:09:49 PM
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.

QuoteAlso, 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...

QuoteEven 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?

Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2010, 07:16:19 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2010, 07:24:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 06:32:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Grallon on March 17, 2010, 07:27:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2010, 07:48:52 PMI can't think of a single nation that isn't in the UN.

Would you rate Taiwan or Tibet as real nations?

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 08:07:02 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2010, 07:48:52 PMI 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.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 06:38:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 06:32:46 PM
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:

QuoteArticle 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.

Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2010, 06:38:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
Clearly the international community does in fact the unique position of indigenous nations.

But not as sovereigns.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2010, 12:18:54 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2010, 08:07:02 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2010, 07:48:52 PMI 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. 

Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2010, 12:22:53 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2010, 12:18:54 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
Somewhat understandable though as a Poland has no indigenous people.

... left.

Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2010, 06:42:47 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
Somewhat understandable though as a Poland has no indigenous people.

... left.

I guess all the original Poles were replaced by Russians and Germans?

Quote from: Jacob on March 18, 2010, 10:19:46 AM

Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2010, 06:42:47 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
Somewhat understandable though as a Poland has no indigenous people.

... left.

I guess all the original Poles were replaced by Russians and Germans?

They are a grunting mixture of the two. One part hates jews, while the other part puts screen doors on their submarines. Also, that part hates jews too.

Quote from: Grallon on March 17, 2010, 07:27:39 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2010, 07:16:19 PM
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.

The Kurds, Baluchis, Hazara, Tibetans, Uigurs, Sahrawis, not to mention countless tribes in Africa don't have states. While the Sabah family, the Thani family, the Khalifa family, the Saud family, the Mubarak family and the Assad family all seem to have their own seats at the UN.

Interesting how this debate has spiraled into a loggerhead of semantics over one word, that obviously has subtly different meanings depending on where you live.

Never thought I'd see that on Languish :p

I find the fiction that Canadian Indians are sovereign both amusing and a bit unsettling.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2010, 12:18:54 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2010, 10:41:38 PM
Clearly the international community does in fact the unique position of indigenous nations.

But not as sovereigns.

You can keep repeating that but it doesnt make it so.  That question is one of the things that drives the land claims issue and why modern treaty making is occuring.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 18, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
Interesting how this debate has spiraled into a loggerhead of semantics over one word, that obviously has subtly different meanings depending on where you live.

Never thought I'd see that on Languish :p

It's a legal debate. It's like saying that a criminal trial is a "loggerhead of semantics over one word" (namely "guilty").  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2010, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 18, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
Interesting how this debate has spiraled into a loggerhead of semantics over one word, that obviously has subtly different meanings depending on where you live.

Never thought I'd see that on Languish :p

It's a legal debate. It's like saying that a criminal trial is a "loggerhead of semantics over one word" (namely "guilty").  :rolleyes:

You suck at analogies worse then.... oh wait, you are Marti.

Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2010, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 18, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
Interesting how this debate has spiraled into a loggerhead of semantics over one word, that obviously has subtly different meanings depending on where you live.

Never thought I'd see that on Languish :p

It's a legal debate. It's like saying that a criminal trial is a "loggerhead of semantics over one word" (namely "guilty").  :rolleyes:

For a legal debate you haven't given us a single legal citation, by the way.  On the other hand I've quoted the Canadian constitution, the Declaration on Indigenous People, a  link to a cite with many of the leading case names...

Quote from: Jacob on March 18, 2010, 10:19:46 AM
I guess all the original Poles were replaced by Russians and Germans?

The natives were massacred back in prehistory.  Of course, every single person that is considered 'Polish' these days is actually a Russian.