First Nations in Canada

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If so, then why would the elders, for their part, have any more authority off the reserve?

The argument, as I understand it, is that authority over unceded traditional First Nations territory is with the hereditary chiefs, not with elected reps. Those making this argument say that Canadian courts have ruled this to be so. The conclusion would seem to be that the government and pipeline builders consulted the wrong people. I’ve no idea if that’s accurate, but it seems to be the argument.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The argument, as I understand it, is that authority over unceded traditional First Nations territory is with the hereditary chiefs, not with elected reps. Those making this argument say that Canadian courts have ruled this to be so. The conclusion would seem to be that the government and pipeline builders consulted the wrong people. I’ve no idea if that’s accurate, but it seems to be the argument.

Well, I am sitting on unceded First Nations territory right now, as does the house I own and live in.

Our country's legislators meet, debate and vote on unceded First Nations territory too.

[misher]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The argument, as I understand it, is that authority over unceded traditional First Nations territory is with the hereditary chiefs, not with elected reps. Those making this argument say that Canadian courts have ruled this to be so. The conclusion would seem to be that the government and pipeline builders consulted the wrong people. I’ve no idea if that’s accurate, but it seems to be the argument.

The same people saying that also say that hereditary chiefs have the right to strip titles from other chiefs (despite the word "hereditary" being on the title). So the 3 female chiefs that are pro-pipeline got their titles stripped.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, I am sitting on unceded First Nations territory right now, as does the house I own and live in.

Our country's legislators meet, debate and vote on unceded First Nations territory too.

But, in the new world of nation to nation and UNDRIP, that must be with consultation and “informed consent”, no?

[Renn]

Originally Posted by lio45

Easily addressed by a slightly amended statement - "hereditary chiefs having any actual power is an idea we find unpalatable". We're fine with them existing, having a ceremonial role, and seeing their picture here and there within the context of their tribe.

If the Queen of England took a firm position against the (approved by Canadian authorities) Trans Mountain pipeline, wouldn't we tell her to shut up and mind her own business? We probably (hopefully) would. But she's wise enough to not ever do that, so moot point. Let those hereditary chiefs be like her.

Bingo. I'm all for respecting culture and preserving rights, but ruling based on hereditary power just doesn't make sense anymore and there's only so far we can go to appease them. There's no scenario in which hereditary chiefs should be allowed to overrule the elected band council.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Renn

Bingo. I'm all for respecting culture and preserving rights, but ruling based on hereditary power just doesn't make sense anymore and there's only so far we can go to appease them. There's no scenario in which hereditary chiefs should be allowed to overrule the elected band council.

The only reason this gets support is because people are trained to automatically say "yes" when they hear its "First Nations". Just like with the LGBT movement people automatically supported Jessica Yaniv at the start. I still remember getting into a few arguments with friends who were insisting that salons should be required to wax her genitalia.

[Acajack]

It's really hard to see how western democratic decision-making can coexist in the same country with hereditary decision-making power.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by misher

The only reason this gets support is because people are trained to automatically say "yes" when they hear its "First Nations". Just like with the LGBT movement people automatically supported Jessica Yaniv at the start. I still remember getting into a few arguments with friends who were insisting that salons should be required to wax her genitalia.

It wasn't just the LBGTQAB3DASDFGHSJHH!$"$^%$1234' community that supported Johnathan Yaniv. There were a lot of straight people saying that too. People like Yaniv give his movement a black eye.

Even more disturbing than the johnathan yaniv incident was the fact that the city of vancouver stopped funding a rape support centre for women because they wouldn't serve transexuals. This is what our society has come to

There was outrage on another forum because I said I wanted to convert to sihkism and was banned from the site for a week, Yet the same people that were outraged are ok with men becoming women.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Luisito

There was outrage on another forum because I said I wanted to convert to sihkism and was banned from the site for a week, Yet the same people that were outraged are ok with men becoming women.

Those dirty rascals banned you?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Luisito

It wasn't just the LBGTQAB3DASDFGHSJHH!$"$^%$1234' community that supported Johnathan Yaniv. There were a lot of straight people saying that too. People like Yaniv give his movement a black eye.

Even more disturbing than the johnathan yaniv incident was the fact that the city of vancouver stopped funding a rape support centre for women because they wouldn't serve transexuals. This is what our society has come to

.

And this is supposedly the enlightened, progressive side.

Anyway, I know which side I am on. It's the enlightened, progressive and respectful one. Even if these days it isn't always recognized as such.

[Franco401]

OK this thread has had its fun and is now being transphobic, can we not

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Franco401

OK this thread has had its fun and is now being transphobic, can we not

Not supporting this Yaniv person is transphobic?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Franco401

OK this thread has had its fun and is now being transphobic, can we not

Wtf?

Also, this thread is the remaining place to discuss what's by far the top news story in Canada at this time - any "Canada discussion forum" would be a sad joke if the #1 Canadian news story of the moment is censored.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not supporting this Yaniv person is transphobic?

There was outrage on another forum because I said I wanted to convert to sihkism and was banned from the site for a week, Yet the same people that were outraged are ok with men becoming women.

If Luisito wants to disavow this statement right now and support trans rights, I'll gladly take it back.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by lio45

Wtf?

Also, this thread is the remaining place to discuss what's by far the top news story in Canada at this time - any "Canada discussion forum" would be a sad joke if the #1 Canadian news story of the moment is censored.

This isn't a news discussion forum, and last I checked bashing the LGBTQ community has fuck-all to do with First Nations, so what's your real motivation in backing up the transphobe?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Franco401

If Luisito wants to disavow this statement right now and support trans rights, I'll gladly take it back.

Disavow my statement? Never.

And for your information, I support everyones rights, including trans people.

Transphobe? Really? If I am transphobe maybe your a racist? maybe you don't like a person with a Spanish name expressing a view that makes you uncomfortable? So i'll admit i'm a transphobe when you admit your a racist. How does that sound? Two can play that game.

[Franco401]

I never brought race into a conversation it had nothing to do with, and I certainly didn't use someone else's progressive position on people with Spanish names as a negative. You have a problem with somebody, and you used their not being transphobic as a negative. Not a good look if you want anyone to believe for an instant that you support their rights, especially when a few posts earlier you took issue with the city of Vancouver standing in solidarity with trans people and not associating with those who exclude them.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Franco401

I never brought race into a conversation it had nothing to do with, and I certainly didn't use someone else's progressive position on people with Spanish names as a negative. You have a problem with somebody, and you used their not being transphobic as a negative. Not a good look if you want anyone to believe for an instant that you support their rights, especially when a few posts earlier you took issue with the city of Vancouver standing in solidarity with trans people and not associating with those who exclude them.

I stand with the Womens rape crisis centre that has been there for decades and recieved funding for a long time. A centre that was vandalized by trans activist.
I also stand with the immigrant women that refused to wax a mans hairy scrotum.

Do I think trans should also have a centre? Yes I do.

[p_xavier]

Yeah, "false progressives" these days sides with predators and religious fanatics. I thought this forum was better than that. A bad person is a bad person, whatever your race or sexual orientation is. Maybe we're not woke enough?

[lrt's friend]

Back on topic, if there is to be reconciliation there needs to be negotiation in good faith. I question whether that is happening any more. The hereditary chiefs are like negotiating with a moving target. It promotes extremism as the most vocal opponents simply declare themselves the rightful spokespeople for the tribe.

We saw that here in Ottawa with the Zibi project. The people involved in the project negotiated in good faith with the local first nation and came to an agreement but then immediately there was opposition with others representing the same nation. Since the land was in private ownership, this could only so far. As soon as it is government or crown land, first nation's leverage it much more to their advantage. It is a sad statement, that there is not always fair negotiation that creates a win-win.