[fifeboy]

Zipperfish wrote:

I agre wiht Axeman. Clearly the Proclamation of 1763 is a defining documetn that forms the basis for 250 years of the legal relationship between Indians and the British / Canada. Howeve the world it was written in no longer exists. The idea, for example, of deinfing a person according to their genetic make-up (as defined in the Indian Act) does not sit well with me. Most people accrue rights because they are a citizen of a country, but Indian accrue rights according to their ancestral lineage (i.e. race-based), which is inimical to today's values, I think. For instacne, we recently apologized for the Chinese head tax, which was a race-based law. It's time to move to a system where membership in an Indian band is based on a citizenship model that allows immigration and emigration, as opopsed to genes.

The bands have control over membership and it is not always race based.

[fifeboy]

Axeman wrote:

fifeboy wrote:

I am not a lawyer and have little understanding of our law, but I do believe that the Treaties and such things as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 have been respected by the courts, including the oral traditions of Aboriginal people regarding these documents.

Well, clearly my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if something written 250 years ago is causing controversy today, the prudent thing would be to come up with a 21st century solution. Using the "I'm right because of document X, in ancient history" isn't helping to make peace. If we sat down together, as Canadians, and made agreements that all parties could live with TODAY, we'd be a lot closer to a happy confederation.

I would think that a decision by a high court would constitute a modern solution. They have, unless I am mistaken, upheld the treaties and the Aboriginal oral history surrounding them. I don't know about the 1763 document and have to rely on legal people for their thoughts here.

[DrJones]

Aboriginal law is very complicated, and I don't pretend to be an expert in it. But after the constitution was repatriated in 1982, aboriginal rights are also found in section 35 of the new Constitution Act

Some rights to aboriginals are indeed based on historical links to their land and are "race based" to an extent. For example, if aboriginals can claim 'aboriginal title' to a piece of land that is a very unique type of land title right with specific obligations on the Crown etc.

So you may start back in 1763 but we have altered the constitution more recently and given aboriginals specific rights. The courts have in turn interpreted these in sometimes strange ways.

[Axeman]

fifeboy wrote:

I would think that a decision by a high court would constitute a modern solution. They have, unless I am mistaken, upheld the treaties and the Aboriginal oral history surrounding them. I don't know about the 1763 document and have to rely on legal people for their thoughts here.

Well, the most recent source would be the 1982 Constitution Act which affirms agreements made before Confederation. But I would argue that was left in the Constitution because no one had the guts to address the problem 27 years ago. I still believe that both natives and non-natives would benefit from some modern solutions to some legitimate concerns.

[fifeboy]

Axeman wrote:

fifeboy wrote:

I would think that a decision by a high court would constitute a modern solution. They have, unless I am mistaken, upheld the treaties and the Aboriginal oral history surrounding them. I don't know about the 1763 document and have to rely on legal people for their thoughts here.

Well, the most recent source would be the 1982 Constitution Act which affirms agreements made before Confederation. But I would argue that was left in the Constitution because no one had the guts to address the problem 27 years ago. I still believe that both natives and non-natives would benefit from some modern solutions to some legitimate concerns.

I have read and understood what you say here, but great care needs to be taken. If this situation is to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, a Solomon needs to emerge from the crowd.

[Mowich]

I will be glad when Canada comes out of the dark ages and finally addresses native issues in a non-race-based manner. It is beyond belief that in this day we have laws for 'whites' and laws for natives. Only when all the people of Canada are treated equally and fairly under the law will Canada finally be able to speak to other nations regarding their discriminatory laws. As it stands now we have no right to 'tell' other countries how they should treat their citizens.

[Axeman]

fifeboy wrote:

I have read and understood what you say here, but great care needs to be taken. If this situation is to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, a Solomon needs to emerge from the crowd.

Yeah, I agree. It seems that we got so pissed off with trying to accomodate Native and Quebecois issues in the 80s and 90s that we've just thrown up our arms and put them on the back burner rather than trying to be proactive.

[Brenda]

Axeman wrote:

fifeboy wrote:

I have read and understood what you say here, but great care needs to be taken. If this situation is to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, a Solomon needs to emerge from the crowd.

Yeah, I agree. It seems that we got so pissed off with trying to accomodate Native and Quebecois issues in the 80s and 90s that we've just thrown up our arms and put them on the back burner rather than trying to be proactive.

So again, its OUR fault?

It's a 2 way street...

[fifeboy]

Brenda wrote:

Axeman wrote:

fifeboy wrote:

I have read and understood what you say here, but great care needs to be taken. If this situation is to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, a Solomon needs to emerge from the crowd.

Yeah, I agree. It seems that we got so pissed off with trying to accomodate Native and Quebecois issues in the 80s and 90s that we've just thrown up our arms and put them on the back burner rather than trying to be proactive.

So again, its OUR fault?

It's a 2 way street...

Yeah Brenda, everyone is blaming the Dutch, right!

[Yogi]

fifeboy wrote:

[quote="Brenda"

Yeah, I agree. It seems that we got so pissed off with trying to accomodate Native and Quebecois issues in the 80s and 90s that we've just thrown up our arms and put them on the back burner rather than trying to be proactive.

So again, its OUR fault?

It's a 2 way street...[/quote]Yeah Brenda, everyone is blaming the Dutch, right![/quote]

to you Brenda!

Fifeboy, you 'missed' Brenda's post completely!

Brenda is doing exactly what every ethnic or 'separate cultural' group should be doing, and that is to meld into one Canadian culture while maintaining and practising pride in heritage!

[Brenda]

fifeboy wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Axeman wrote:

Yeah, I agree. It seems that we got so pissed off with trying to accomodate Native and Quebecois issues in the 80s and 90s that we've just thrown up our arms and put them on the back burner rather than trying to be proactive.

So again, its OUR fault?

It's a 2 way street...

Yeah Brenda, everyone is blaming the Dutch, right!

Huh?
I live in Canada, sweetheart, I am part of this country, whether you like it or not. I pay taxes, Canadian issues are my issues.
You mind?

[fifeboy]

Brenda wrote:

I live in Canada, sweetheart, I am part of this country, whether you like it or not. I pay taxes, Canadian issues are my issues.
You mind?

Not at all. However, we need to be concerned with the needs and feelings of minorities within Canada.

[Brenda]

fifeboy wrote:

Brenda wrote:

I live in Canada, sweetheart, I am part of this country, whether you like it or not. I pay taxes, Canadian issues are my issues.
You mind?

Not at all. However, we need to be concerned with the needs and feelings of minorities within Canada.

I still don't understand your comment about my country of origin in this regard.
If I was black, or even Asian, I would be considered a minority though. I am caucasian, so now I am not.
So basicly, i don't get this comment either.

Issues are a 2-way street. You cannot come to a workable solution if one of the 2 refuses to co-operate, and only demands.

[fifeboy]

Brenda wrote:

I still don't understand your comment about my country of origin in this regard.
If I was black, or even Asian, I would be considered a minority though. I am caucasian, so now I am not.
So basicly, i don't get this comment either.

And I admit to being sometimes obtuse in my comments. You and I are, as people of European ancestry, members of the majority in Canada. We are, so to speak, the ruling elite. However, this country is composed of three founding societies, two of which are European and one which is indigenous. What makes our country the wonderful place it is is the interaction between these three. Now we are adding, as you pointed out, people from other cultures as well. Our history of interaction with each other (Aboriginal, English and French) puts us in a unique place to invest these other people into our society. What irritates me are people who think a monolithic culture is our goal, where everyone submits to the will of an English Canadian model of our Country.

Brenda wrote:

Issues are a 2-way street. You cannot come to a workable solution if one of the 2 refuses to co-operate, and only demands.

Indeed, I agree.

[Axeman]

Brenda wrote:

So again, its OUR fault?

Yeah, it's our fault..."our" meaning all Canadians, native and non-native.

Brenda wrote:

It's a 2 way street...

Yes, I believe that was the point I was trying to make.