Toxic Multiculturalism

[Jacob]

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.

Sounds reasonable enough, and almost encouraging....

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.

... this less so.

[Jacob]

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.

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.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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.

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.

[Grey Fox]

Fucking Indians.

[Martinus]

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.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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.

I think you are missing the point.

[Martinus]

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.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Grallon]

Also, it is clear you have a limited understanding of the concept of a non Unitary State.

So do many canadians. 




G.