zW2Ig~~60_7.JPG "brandeentertainment"){kind=avatar}
kr!~~_7.JPG "pigdog47"){kind=avatar}
First the people would have to understand the treaties. Then they would have to understand how the money is allocated and why. To sign this petition without all the facts and knowledge would be signing a petition based on a knee jerk reaction while blindfolded.
The other point that this petition misses is …..the First Nations people are owed this money and probably a lot more. This information is within the legal and binding treaties. The money is not a handout to the Native people, it is the price of rent. If some taxpayers don’t like the rent, it’s real simple, just like anything else in life………move.
"the First Nations people are owed this money and probably a lot more. This information is within the legal and binding treaties."
That is your opinion and you have the righ to it.
Others, who are just as aware of the facts, maybe more aware in fact, have a different opinion. That opinion needs to be respected as well.
you have the righ to it.
Certainly. People have a right to their opinion, even if it is incorrect. Their problem, not mine.
Have you read the treaties Pierre? Start there. They begin about 1750.
I believe there are many 'laws' and deals that were written in 1750 based on what was happening then, that are no longer applicable now.. Things have changed over the last 260 years - what was agreed to in 1750 may not work today.
The agreements made with the First Nations people as far back as 1750 were made with them because back then the land was theirs. Now here we are today and guess what.....it's still theirs. The 'Crown' agreed to pay the First Nations people for resources taken from the land. Back then it was wood, furs, and some other resources. The money made by the trading companies belonging to Britain would share the wealth with the Native people. However because the Native people didn't have a way to handle money........guess who took care of it....the 'Crown'. These agreements extended initially from Ontario to the east coast. As the Crown had several financial problems, they altered the agreements with the First Nations people. When the railroad went across Canada there were new agreements to come to. For the most part Manitoba and Sask and Alberta were taken. BC was just totally stolen. Nonetheless agreements had to be made in some respect so that Britain looked 'respectable'. These agreements with the First Nations people are binding and stand.
Now I know this may be hard to associate with but if you have an agreement and suddenly the other party says they want to change it (because it benefits them) but you don't want to change it.............how would you like being forced to? No one would, including the First Nations people.
At the end of the day, different people will have different opinions or interpretations on the subject.
In fact many will agree "because back then the land was theirs..."
That is your interpretation.
It is important to analyze the many court decisions over the years onm the subject of aboriginal claims. For instance:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp459-e.htm
It is not unusual to see split decisions where 3 judges see it one way and two see it differently. The problems are complex and to simply claim "because back then the land was theirs" as an answer to justify wasting money and resources and allowing a small minority of Canadians to take the law in their own hands in not acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.
Other interesting court cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_v._M.N.R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sparrow
an analysis of the above: http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/CJNS/13.2/isaac.pdf
Here is an interesting summary of many decisions involving aboriginal rights:
http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/subject-guides/criminology/aboriginal-law
That is your interpretation.
Exactly.........and the interpretation of many lawyers. This is also another reason that so much is spent by the First Nations people and the Canadian taxpayer on legalities.
".........and the interpretation of many lawyers"
That is correct and you have as many, if not more, lawyers coming with a different and often contradictory opinion.
That's how they all make money!
That's how they all make money!
In the end.........they're the real winners.
“Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes
It seems in this world some people are short on excitement in their own lives. Last year I met an interesting grey haired lady with her two grandchildren sitting on her lap. While we were talking she mentioned her time she spent in Central America with the Contras. Here was this slightly chubby grey haired grandma telling me she had an exciting life. So as we talked she reached into a drawer and brought out a photo album and sure enough there she was, her and her girlfriend (both fantastic looking women) in the late 60’s standing with a group of Contras, all armed to the teeth and her with a boa constrictor around her neck. She went on to tell me about the rest of her experiences from visiting the Vatican and meeting the pope when she was in a concert band and her trip to the Andes and her trip to China and the list went on and on. Did I think she was bragging? No, she was passing on her life experiences. But I suppose to some people who have had a boring life in many ways or who are just plain jealous, or who might have other issues with her on other subjects and maybe needed to find something, anything to attack her….they would probably say she was bragging.
They would be cheering me on to my own demize.
Not necessarily. There has been land that has been returned to the original Irish owners ….the same as there has been land that has been returned to Jewish people after WW2. The difference between the Irish and the Jews compared to the First Nations people is the Native people have treaties….agreements….promises….to their people.
Not every Aboriginal from Frobisher Bay to the Panama Canal cares about the great spirit in the sky, most see the eagle as the vulture it is, eater of carion.
I don’t know where you get your information but eagles if 'need be' will eat carrion but generally speaking they are birds of prey and prefer their food live before being caught. You should drop by a Reserve and discuss your conclusions that eagles are just “the vulture it is”.
However you are correct that there are Native people who have no interest in their ‘beliefs’ of the past….the same as there are Irish who have no interest in their history or Christians who have no interest in their religion etc etc etc etc. That however does not mean that because some do not have an interest that those who do……should change.
I am of the belief that Aboriginals want the best for their own families and do not want to live in the past hoping beyond hope that they could once again kill buffalo, elk, samon, rabbitt for sustanance.
I also believe that the Native people want the best for their families. Now the question is ‘what is the best’? To some it’s a law degree or an engineering degree and for others it’s living on the land and living a life closer to nature. To some people a ‘better life’ is a really nice house in a nice subdivision and a nice car in the driveway and a wallet full of credit cards to buy the most fashionable clothes. To others a better life is away from the hustle and bustle of the city and living at a location way up north, or in the desert in New Mexico or Arizona, or living on a mountain in Tibet. Who is anyone to say “this is the better life”? People chose their own paths. I like the country. I like the privacy, the dirt roads, the old rickety bridges, or watching the deer going back in the woods in the morning. I liked having parties with 200 people and a band and no neighbours to complain. I like being able to go out in the field and target shoot and no one cares. I like sitting outside at night looking at the stars without light pollution or air pollution cutting down their visibility. Each to their own and I don’t tell anyone what is a ‘better life’ for them…..they make their own decisions.
Late 60's I said. I believe their main uprising was in the 70's but they were being established in the late 60's. I may be off a year or few if that really matters to you.
