HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:26 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But that's exactly what indigenous people (or at least a lot of them) don't want: to be Canadians just like everyone else that simply blend into the mass.

And that's also what most Québécois don't want as well: to simply be Canadians comme les autres.

Of course, in the case of Québécois we have a whole bunch of favourable factors that allow us to mostly live that way, and that indigenous people do not have on their side.
For most of my life I have been puzzled by that very mindset. Why do people who were born in this country and are inexorably part of this country... not want to be part of this country?

I don't buy loss of culture as a reason. There are many cultures in Canada that maintain their own strong cultural identity while adhering to the same rules and laws that all other Canadians adhere to, and maintain an active role in Canadian society.

Honestly, I think the Canada of the future is strongest if all its inhabitants feel that they have an equal footing in the country and all feel they are an integral part of the Country.
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:27 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't get that part. I know people who have those special licenses and they are aware that they're not allowed to sell what they catch to anybody. I don't know what the penalties are.
The article doesn't mention any penalties to the Indigenous fishermen, only Mr. Zheng.
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:34 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
I'm guessing that lobster needs to be cleared for export in one way or another and that this lobster didn't qualify because it was caught out of season. It's possible that it could be sold domestically or that it was exported in error (maybe they were being stored at the same facility Mr. Zheng used and there was a miscommunication?) Or it could be that "non-commercial" lobster may only be sold by Natives or consumed by the person who caught it. My impression is that the spirit of the law would lean more towards "enabling communities to harvest their own food" as opposed to "giving Natives unrestricted, duty-free access to global lobster markets at a corportate scale" but there are probably loopholes as with most laws.

I'm also not sure that the "right to fish for a moderate living" means the right to fish exclusively lobster year-round (maybe it does). The lobster industry is heavily regulated to prevent the collapse of stocks so my intuition is that the access to less-restricted fishing rights comes with some strings or exclusions. But who knows.
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:43 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But that's exactly what indigenous people (or at least a lot of them) don't want: to be Canadians just like everyone else that simply blend into the mass.
Possibly. But most people with status already live off-reserve and the off-reserve population is growing 4x faster.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...71025a-eng.htm

I know a few people with status who live typical lives in metro Vancouver and seem to have no desire to move to a rural area to connect with the land or whatever the stereotype is. Obviously there's selection bias here, but they seem to be following the usual trend of urbanization, and in doing so they are picking more cosmopolitan cities over a more distinct lifestyle and stronger cultural connection.
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:58 PM
Razor Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Possibly. But most people with status already live off-reserve and the off-reserve population is growing 4x faster.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...71025a-eng.htm

I know a few people with status who live typical lives in metro Vancouver and seem to have no desire to move to a rural area to connect with the land or whatever the stereotype is. Obviously there's selection bias here, but they seem to be following the usual trend of urbanization, and in doing so they are picking more cosmopolitan cities over a more distinct lifestyle and stronger cultural connection.
Do they still celebrate their heritage?. If so, then that's a win in 2020 IMO, and not living on one of these third world reserves like we see in Northern Ontario.
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:29 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I'm guessing that lobster needs to be cleared for export in one way or another and that this lobster didn't qualify because it was caught out of season. It's possible that it could be sold domestically or that it was exported in error (maybe they were being stored at the same facility Mr. Zheng used and there was a miscommunication?) Or it could be that "non-commercial" lobster may only be sold by Natives or consumed by the person who caught it. My impression is that the spirit of the law would lean more towards "enabling communities to harvest their own food" as opposed to "giving Natives unrestricted, duty-free access to global lobster markets at a corportate scale" but there are probably loopholes as with most laws.

I'm also not sure that the "right to fish for a moderate living" means the right to fish exclusively lobster year-round (maybe it does). The lobster industry is heavily regulated to prevent the collapse of stocks so my intuition is that the access to less-restricted fishing rights comes with some strings or exclusions. But who knows.
Lobster season is year-round in Nova Scotia, but is divided into districts with distinct seasons for each region: https://www.tastelobster.ca/images/fishing_regions.pdf

I am unclear on the intricacies of what is allowed under Aboriginal treaty rights, etc., but my impression is that they are allowed to fish year-round, regardless of season, to feed their families and to give away. Not sure about the legalities of selling their catch, which is at the root of my questions about the article I linked to.
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:40 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
How then would you explain the same reactions experienced by aboriginal Canadians who have tried to assimilate into mainstream society?
Unfortunately, it's called guilt by association. This is similar to Vancouver's Chinese population where if any of them are seen driving an expensive car you automatically assume they are money launderers and passport buyers.

The Native leaders make this much worse by demanding Ottawa drop money from the sky every time there is a problem without looking inwards on how they can fix the issue themselves...………...a classic welfare mentality. Chiefs state they want independence for their communities {which they most assuredly don't as it would lessen their power and bank accounts} and they know Ottawa will throw them "shut up" money to appease them. This is politically expedient as it makes the governing party look like they are doing something and hence get the issue off the front page.

The Native situation will NEVER improve until the feudal Chief and Reserve system is completely dismantled.
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:51 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
^^^ When you have a vested and very lucrative interest in a multi-billion dollar industry it would be expected to fight tooth and nail, and play every card in your hand, to maintain the status quo.
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 2:29 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
So if it's prohibited to sell the catch, and this has nothing to do with fishing for a moderate living... I would guess we can draw from this that they were being sold illegally. But then, how come only the non-Indigenous person gets trouble for it?

Or... is it legal for Indigenous to sell to anybody, even a business, but it's only illegal once the business sells it. If that's the case, wouldn't knowingly selling to a business who exists to resell lobster also be a crime?
Quote:
He blamed a language barrier caused by his poor English, saying workers mistakenly packed lobster being held for Indigenous fishermen into a commercial shipment.
The indigenous person did not have intent to sell the lobster. It was accidentally stolen from him by the company and then sold. That is the point at which the crime happened. I'm kind of surprised no one bothered to read the article to answer the question, they all just assumed it didn't explain it because you asked?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Heard this story yesterday evening on CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...bank-1.5419519

What stood out there to me was this part:


Imagine if every single Québécois just got $30,000 no strings attached appearing in their bank account just for existing, while other Canadians didn't get anything. (We were conquered, after all. Got to have some compensation!)

That's completely nuts. I can understand how local non-natives wouldn't be too fond of local natives in that kind of context. Imagine a Thunder Bay divided among poor whites with nearly empty bank accounts and poor natives in equivalent socioeconomic positions but with $30,000 that fell out of the sky into their bank account just because they have a pulse and the "correct" ancestry. Of course that would stoke resentment and division.

I mean, if you think Walloons and Flemish dislike each other already, then imagine an alternate reality in which every single Walloon with a pulse just received 25k€ no strings attached wired into their bank accounts, courtesy of the Belgian treasury into which every one (including the Flemish) all pay. Surely that'll help, right?
You know what a "land settlement" is, right? It's the purchase of land by Canada from the people who owned the land. All members of that nation were considered to have collectively owned the land, and now Canada owns the land, and the money they received was the payment Canada gave them for the land.

I don't understand what you're not understanding here?

This has actually happened in Thunder Bay twice, Fort William First Nation had two illegal land seizures. The first was about 24 square kilometers of farmland, which was where they intended to establish their community as an agricultural community to be self sufficient. Canada took it in the 1860s because white people were moving to the region and wanted farmland, and it was good farmland. The community was finally paid for this land in 2012. Next, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, two islands and a large piece of mainland were taken from the reserve by Canada so that the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways could build port facilities in the Kaministiquia River Delta (which used to be almost entirely in the reserve, and now absolutely none of it is—the reserve is actually nearly landlocked). They demolished the entire reserve to build this, moving everyone to a swampy area about 5 miles away. This land was paid for in the early 2000s. Every member of the reserve received a lump sum of money when these agreements went through, but the reserve also put a lot of it into savings and investments. They recently voted in favour of doing away with the Indian Act, meaning they will no longer be eligible for a wide variety of federal benefits, but they don't need them. The sale of their land to Canada finally going through after over 150 years is supporting them financially. They're also co-operating very strategically with the city to manage various larger economic projects.

You can't compare this to the situation in Belgium.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
For most of my life I have been puzzled by that very mindset. Why do people who were born in this country and are inexorably part of this country... not want to be part of this country?
They are part of this country. They're a distinct part, like Quebec. They have their own language, culture and customs and they want those recognized and protected. Like Quebec. They have land and they want to decide what happens on it. Like Quebec.
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 3:48 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
The indigenous person did not have intent to sell the lobster. It was accidentally stolen from him by the company and then sold. That is the point at which the crime happened. I'm kind of surprised no one bothered to read the article to answer the question, they all just assumed it didn't explain it because you asked?



You know what a "land settlement" is, right? It's the purchase of land by Canada from the people who owned the land. All members of that nation were considered to have collectively owned the land, and now Canada owns the land, and the money they received was the payment Canada gave them for the land.

I don't understand what you're not understanding here?

This has actually happened in Thunder Bay twice, Fort William First Nation had two illegal land seizures. The first was about 24 square kilometers of farmland, which was where they intended to establish their community as an agricultural community to be self sufficient. Canada took it in the 1860s because white people were moving to the region and wanted farmland, and it was good farmland. The community was finally paid for this land in 2012. Next, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, two islands and a large piece of mainland were taken from the reserve by Canada so that the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways could build port facilities in the Kaministiquia River Delta (which used to be almost entirely in the reserve, and now absolutely none of it is—the reserve is actually nearly landlocked). They demolished the entire reserve to build this, moving everyone to a swampy area about 5 miles away. This land was paid for in the early 2000s. Every member of the reserve received a lump sum of money when these agreements went through, but the reserve also put a lot of it into savings and investments. They recently voted in favour of doing away with the Indian Act, meaning they will no longer be eligible for a wide variety of federal benefits, but they don't need them. The sale of their land to Canada finally going through after over 150 years is supporting them financially. They're also co-operating very strategically with the city to manage various larger economic projects.

You can't compare this to the situation in Belgium.



They are part of this country. They're a distinct part, like Quebec. They have their own language, culture and customs and they want those recognized and protected. Like Quebec. They have land and they want to decide what happens on it. Like Quebec.
I missed where it said he is accused of stealing lobster in the article. Instead there’s this: Federal crown prosecutor Mark Stares dismissed Zheng's version, saying a company document valued Indigenous lobster at $4.50 a pound.
...which sounds like he bought it??? Which means somebody sold it?

We are all distinct and want to maintain our own cultures... I just don’t understand the negativity towards being part of it.
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 6:29 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
You know what a "land settlement" is, right? It's the purchase of land by Canada from the people who owned the land. All members of that nation were considered to have collectively owned the land, and now Canada owns the land, and the money they received was the payment Canada gave them for the land.

I don't understand what you're not understanding here?
It's not a question of not understanding, it's a question of finding it really weird and also a very bad idea from the point of view of unity and equality of the greater "us".

My analogy was pretty close: let's imagine some old documents saying that privileges X, Y, Z were supposed to be granted to Canadiens as part of the terms of the 1760s deals following the Conquest are found to have never been fully complied with, so every single Québécois with a pulse gets a lump sum of $30,000 no strings attached wired into their bank account overnight today in 2020 to "settle" the matter.

You don't think that that happening would be at least somewhat a bit toxic to current Alberta-Quebec or Ontario-Quebec relations? If so then I have a super nice absolutely complete and functional CIBC building to sell you on Victoria Ave. And it's oceanfront, too.

The Belgian example works too - in the analogy, some medieval treaty that's been in practice ignored for centuries always clearly said that [Public Good of Significant Value to Modern Belgium] collectively belonged to the Walloons, and this "wrong" never got "righted" over the centuries, so it gets settled financially once and for all in 2020. Again, that would obviously have negative effects on Walloon-Flemish relations and would just exacerbate division and dislike of the other group, no? (That's crystal clear to me at least.)
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 6:34 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
My analogy was pretty close: let's imagine some old documents saying that privileges X, Y, Z were supposed to be granted to Canadiens as part of the terms of the 1760s deals following the Conquest are found to have never been fully complied with, so every single Québécois with a pulse gets a lump sum of $30,000 no strings attached wired into their bank account overnight today in 2020 to "settle" the matter.
People in NS often bring up rights granted by old treaties from the 1700's. As in 1990's court cases may bring up treaties from the 1750's.

The 1752 peace treaty between Britain and the Mi'kmaq in NS included:

That all Transactions during the late War shall on both sides be buried in Oblivion with the Hatchet, and that the said Indians shall have all favour, Friendship & Protection shewn them from this His Majesty's Government.

Cornwallis came up with this treaty, and both sides agreed to it, but people were tearing down Cornwallis statues in the 2010's due to events that happened during the war.

It had fishing rights in it (with no environmental protections; that was not a concern in 1700's NS):

It is agreed that the said Tribe of Indians shall not be hindered from, but have free liberty of Hunting & Fishing as usual: and that if they shall think a Truckhouse needful at the River Chibenaccadie or any other place of their resort, they shall have the same built and proper Merchandize lodged therein, to be Exchanged for what the Indians shall have to dispose of, and that in the mean time the said Indians shall have free liberty to bring for Sale to Halifax or any other Settlement within this Province, Skins, feathers, fowl, fish or any other thing they shall have to sell, where they shall have liberty to dispose thereof to the best Advantage.

Nobody mentions this:

That the Indians shall use their best Endeavours to save the lives and goods of any People Shipwrecked on this Coast, where they resort, and shall Conduct the People saved to Halifax with their Goods, & a Reward adequate to the Salvadge shall be given them.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11.../1100100029041

I think at some point Canada needs to move past 1700's style legal treatment of distinct ethnic groups. And there should be more appreciation that parts of Canada have had fairly balanced treaties for a really long time. It was not a free-for-all of Europeans doing whatever they felt like to indigenous people even in 1755, although the frontier existed for a long time and the rule of law there was weak or nonexistent.
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 1:02 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
It's not a question of not understanding, it's a question of finding it really weird and also a very bad idea from the point of view of unity and equality of the greater "us".

My analogy was pretty close: let's imagine some old documents saying that privileges X, Y, Z were supposed to be granted to Canadiens as part of the terms of the 1760s deals following the Conquest are found to have never been fully complied with, so every single Québécois with a pulse gets a lump sum of $30,000 no strings attached wired into their bank account overnight today in 2020 to "settle" the matter.

You don't think that that happening would be at least somewhat a bit toxic to current Alberta-Quebec or Ontario-Quebec relations? If so then I have a super nice absolutely complete and functional CIBC building to sell you on Victoria Ave. And it's oceanfront, too.
If they also had similar interactions in the past that were unresolved, then maybe, but more likely it would give them the incentive to push for a resolution on them. If they didn't have such interactions than they need to understand that this isn't involving them.

People get jealous when their neighbours get a financial settlement for the guy who totaled their car 2 years ago, it doesn't mean they're right to and it doesn't mean it's unfair to them to not get money. There are very specific reasons that land settlements are still being resolved financially a hundred plus years after the land was originally taken, one of them being that the crown that took the land and the band that owned the land still exist to the same extent that they did when it happened, so we don't put this dispute on a timeline that might make sense within your personal life. This isn't individuals getting money; the band gets money and then disperses some or all (or none) of the money to individuals as payments. The federal government isn't the one issuing the cheques for $30,000, the band does that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
The Belgian example works too - in the analogy, some medieval treaty that's been in practice ignored for centuries always clearly said that [Public Good of Significant Value to Modern Belgium] collectively belonged to the Walloons, and this "wrong" never got "righted" over the centuries, so it gets settled financially once and for all in 2020. Again, that would obviously have negative effects on Walloon-Flemish relations and would just exacerbate division and dislike of the other group, no? (That's crystal clear to me at least.)
So first off, 1850s to 1950s isn't "medieval". In the case of Ipperwash, there are people alive today who were alive when the land was originally taken. Are there 700 year old people in Wallonia? Did Flanders take large chunks of Wallonia and push all of the Walloons out of those lands, and the Walloons continuously since that land was taken fight to get the land back or get compensation for the land? Because that's what is happening in this case.

This isn't hush money. This is a land transaction that is 100+ years in the making. And if you think otherwise, I'm going to take one of your properties and pay you for it in 2156.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
People in NS often bring up rights granted by old treaties from the 1700's. As in 1990's court cases may bring up treaties from the 1750's.

The 1752 peace treaty between Britain and the Mi'kmaq in NS included:

That all Transactions during the late War shall on both sides be buried in Oblivion with the Hatchet, and that the said Indians shall have all favour, Friendship & Protection shewn them from this His Majesty's Government.

Cornwallis came up with this treaty, and both sides agreed to it, but people were tearing down Cornwallis statues in the 2010's due to events that happened during the war.

It had fishing rights in it (with no environmental protections; that was not a concern in 1700's NS):

It is agreed that the said Tribe of Indians shall not be hindered from, but have free liberty of Hunting & Fishing as usual: and that if they shall think a Truckhouse needful at the River Chibenaccadie or any other place of their resort, they shall have the same built and proper Merchandize lodged therein, to be Exchanged for what the Indians shall have to dispose of, and that in the mean time the said Indians shall have free liberty to bring for Sale to Halifax or any other Settlement within this Province, Skins, feathers, fowl, fish or any other thing they shall have to sell, where they shall have liberty to dispose thereof to the best Advantage.

Nobody mentions this:

That the Indians shall use their best Endeavours to save the lives and goods of any People Shipwrecked on this Coast, where they resort, and shall Conduct the People saved to Halifax with their Goods, & a Reward adequate to the Salvadge shall be given them.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11.../1100100029041

I think at some point Canada needs to move past 1700's style legal treatment of distinct ethnic groups. And there should be more appreciation that parts of Canada have had fairly balanced treaties for a really long time. It was not a free-for-all of Europeans doing whatever they felt like to indigenous people even in 1755, although the frontier existed for a long time and the rule of law there was weak or nonexistent.
You refer to the 19th/20th century treaties as "fairly balanced" but you should know (since you've never actually lived under any of them, like I have for my entire life) that they were negotiated and signed in a process that involved the crown sending semi-literate messengers to chiefs that barely understood English, resulting in a lot of assumptions on both sides as to what the treaties actually contained in them. The native people, as they did for centuries, passed down their understanding of the treaties orally. The government kept it on file but didn't put much effort into actually following through with what it said on paper let alone what the Chiefs interpreted it as saying and therefore agreed to. Again, to use a case from Thunder Bay, look at a map of Thunder Bay while reading this:

Quote:
FIRST - Joseph Pean-de-chat and his Tribe, the reserve to commence about two miles from Fort William (inland), on the right bank of the River Kiminitiquia thence westerly six miles, parallel to the shores of the lake; thence northerly five miles; thence easterly to the right bank of the said river, so as not to interfere with any acquired rights of the Honorable Hudson's Bay Company.
Try to draw this on a map. Have fun.

They're not "fairly balanced"; if anything, you could make a case that they should be considered void since neither side that actually negotiated and signed them knew what they were doing at the time. They promised money to a people who had no understanding of money. Is that good faith? Should that kind of agreement have legal standing? If that's the case, give me all your land and I'll let you sleep in the closet and give you $25 a year for the rest of time! In return I'll give you land rights to an area starting at about two miles upstream from the confluence of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers, on the right bank of the St. Lawrence River thence northerly six miles, parallel to the Ottawa River; thence westerly five miles; thence southerly to the right bank of the St. Lawrence River. Enjoy!

So, I do agree that the treaties should be re-negotiated. BC is doing that right now (that's why that guy in Vancouver had money in his bank account—it was from a treaty negotiated in the past few years), and the rest of the country should do it too now that everyone is on the same page in terms of understanding English and knowing what "economy", "money" and "rights" are.
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 7:09 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
'WHITE BASTARDS': Tribunal orders B.C. First Nation Band to pay $30Gs for chief's 'outrageous' comment
AIDAN WALLACE Updated: January 11, 2020

A First Nation band in British Columbia has been ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to pay $30,000 including compensation for pain and suffering to a former band council member after the band’s longtime chief called her a “white bastard” in an email, as reported first by Blacklock’s Reporter.

“I resign. F—ing white bastards run it,” Raymond Morris, chief of the Nee Tahi Buhn Indian Band of Burns Lake, B.C., wrote in a 2014 email to a colleague.

The email addressed female band council member Hayley Nielsen, who has status under the Indian Act but also has a Caucasian father.

Nielson was hurt by the comments and resigned from her council position, filing a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal.


“Morris’ vulgar comments, specifically the terms ‘white bastard,’ are outrageous,” the tribunal wrote. “These comments are directly based on Ms. Nielsen’s mixed origins. She felt because of her origins she was treated differently, which is also an infringement of the Act.”

...

https://vancouversun.com/news/nation...5-7c8541f9b2b3
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 10:58 AM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,438
@vid

Love reading your posts. Very thoughtful and informative.
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2020, 8:26 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
'WHITE BASTARDS': Tribunal orders B.C. First Nation Band to pay $30Gs for chief's 'outrageous' comment
AIDAN WALLACE Updated: January 11, 2020

A First Nation band in British Columbia has been ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to pay $30,000 including compensation for pain and suffering to a former band council member after the band’s longtime chief called her a “white bastard” in an email, as reported first by Blacklock’s Reporter.

“I resign. F—ing white bastards run it,” Raymond Morris, chief of the Nee Tahi Buhn Indian Band of Burns Lake, B.C., wrote in a 2014 email to a colleague.

The email addressed female band council member Hayley Nielsen, who has status under the Indian Act but also has a Caucasian father.

Nielson was hurt by the comments and resigned from her council position, filing a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal.


“Morris’ vulgar comments, specifically the terms ‘white bastard,’ are outrageous,” the tribunal wrote. “These comments are directly based on Ms. Nielsen’s mixed origins. She felt because of her origins she was treated differently, which is also an infringement of the Act.”

...

https://vancouversun.com/news/nation...5-7c8541f9b2b3
Disappointing in any democratic institution (including a band council). You expect different views to be represented across elected officials and you expect them to be able to work in a civil way.
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2020, 12:25 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post

Imagine if every single Québécois just got $30,000 no strings attached appearing in their bank account just for existing, while other Canadians didn't get anything. (We were conquered, after all. Got to have some compensation!)

That's completely nuts. I can understand how local non-natives wouldn't be too fond of local natives in that kind of context. Imagine a Thunder Bay divided among poor whites with nearly empty bank accounts and poor natives in equivalent socioeconomic positions but with $30,000 that fell out of the sky into their bank account just because they have a pulse and the "correct" ancestry. Of course that would stoke resentment and division.

I mean, if you think Walloons and Flemish dislike each other already, then imagine an alternate reality in which every single Walloon with a pulse just received 25k€ no strings attached wired into their bank accounts, courtesy of the Belgian treasury into which every one (including the Flemish) all pay. Surely that'll help, right?
Its a one time deal which translates to $300 a year for life, I'm quite certain quebeccers get more.


My cousin in law got most of her tuition paid for because she was "born" in Quebec. She lives in Ontario her entire life and only lived in Quebec while studying at McGill.

And of course that tuition was really paid by Alberta oil money.


I think the obvious conclusion in all this is that we need to stop with conflating the "racial group" of natives with the various complexities.


There are not status natives who make up a tremendous volume of criminals, addicts, and homeless.

We have people who are rightfully owed certain property rights.

We haven't addressed the flawed assumption. That all people regardless of where or how they are born should share the same citizenship. There is a radical difference between grouping people by how they were born versus where or under what circumstances they were born. If my sister gives birth while in Florida my niece better be given full Canadian citizenship.

The problem with this native issue is it isn't one singular issue.

There are so many levels to this and there is no one size fits all solution.

One issue that rarely gets brought up is the fact many natives are the leftover peoples. If you took my Scottish ancestors and for every generation the successful married English folk, and the failures married within the community you can be dam well certain Scottish people would be absolutely fluffed.

The other big issue is that native culture was the heritage of this nation. Could you imagine Italians disregarding their Roman past because there was no direct linage to that culture. The Brits still obsess over their roman past and they were barely a roman colony, it is a bit twisted that non natives can't or won't take ownership of pre colonial history of this country.

You have native people in northern parts of the country who should basically own entire sections of provinces, in contrast you have 15th generation "status holders" who are basically just regular everyday Canadians.

What we need to do is reform all the choas into something that will endure, and start with a framework that is congruent with our "western" value systems. No regard for race, high value placed on property ownership, democratic band leadership,

Last edited by LakeLocker; Jan 13, 2020 at 12:53 PM.
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2020, 12:28 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop2047 View Post
Personally I am against anything that gives someone a leg up (or hinders them) based upon the birth lottery in this country. For this reason I am pro-equalization in Canada (you don't controls what resources are found under what ground) and pro immigration (I count myself lucky to have been born here and many others are born into less fortunate situations).

Anything that gives an individual special treatment based upon lineage will only perpetuate discrimination, and make reconciliation more difficult.
So I can't inherent the Farm land bought by Irish great great great grandfather?


We need to address the concept that native rights should be about good old fashion ownership and not a racial status.

Figure our what are reasonable claims and what are not, allocate some form of stock bond, whatever and be done with it.
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2020, 4:01 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post

We are all distinct and want to maintain our own cultures... I just don’t understand the negativity towards being part of it.
Rightly or wrongly, there is a sentiment on the part of most indigenous Canadians and francophones as well to some degree that the Canadian nation, identity and related supporting structures were built on top of them and to the exclusion and marginalisation of those they already had, as opposed to being erected in partnership with them.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2020, 5:42 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Rightly or wrongly, there is a sentiment on the part of most indigenous Canadians and francophones as well to some degree that the Canadian nation, identity and related supporting structures were built on top of them and to the exclusion and marginalisation of those they already had, as opposed to being erected in partnership with them.
I understand that.

But the pragmatist within me has to ask the question - what do we do with that?

I mean, the Canada of today has virtually nothing in common with the Canada of the 1700s. There have been a lot of wrongs in the last 300 years but rightly - or wrongly - the country has been built up to be what it is today.

In some way we all benefit from Canada in its current state, and IMHO, it is now one of the best countries in which to live. Not perfect, true, but what is?

There are many wrongs that were done within the past century that definitely need to be corrected, and 'we' (society and the government) need to act to correct them (though as with most things - 'correction' is just compensation, as you can never undo most things that were done).

Attitudes must continue to change and work has to be done - but mostly I think we need to find common ground where we all can put our differences to rest. If we could retain the individuality of ourselves and of our cultures, while understanding and respecting others', that's where I think our country could be at its best. Will we ever get there? I'm not sure, but I really hope that we continue to try...
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.