Stanley trial is going to end badly no matter the finding
Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
DrCaleb @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:56 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
But, right there! You are saying it's my responsibility! I am 'Canada', you are 'Canada', we are 'Canada'. Do we have any say, and therefore any responsibility for things we did not control or even know about? Has 'Canada' apologized for the terrible things it did in our name? It has.
Well there you go. That's a great way to empty out those Saskatchewan jails of all those Indians. "Are you sorry?" "Yup." "Right, off you go then!"
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Crimes are crimes, and Canada has apologized for it's crimes. Quite a bit different than why someone might be in jail. Sickeningly enough, what Canada did to them was legal at the time. Why they are in jail probably wasn't.
And you know that.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
$1:
I will take full responsibility for any actions I made toward this lady. Which, is none, since this is the first I heard about it. I have sympathy for her, I have empathy for her, I hope she finds justice for the things done to her.
Justice? You said, "Has Canada apologized for the terrible things it did in our name? It has." I'm sorry to say that I don't think your idea of justice matches that of many First Nations.
If by that you mean that I don't hold people responsible for crimes they didn't commit, including myself, then yes, we might have different meanings for 'Justice'.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
$1:
But, I did not do them. If I had know about them, perhaps I could have changed that situation. But after the fact, there is little I can do that I'm not currently doing.
Canada has a race problem now--it is not "after the fact." By almost every single indicator, aboriginals in Canada are worse off than black Americans.
Canada might. I don't.
And yes, Aboriginals have the short end of the stick around here, but not from me. And I'm doing what I can to change that, starting with understanding.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
$1:
What happened to her was not the result of her actions, but Colton Boushie bears some responsibility for his. So does his family. The two cases are not similar.
It's telling that you reject the notion of collective responsibility as a citizen of Canada, but think it is fine applied to Boushie's family.
It's also telling that you want to hold me responsible for things that happened before I was born, but don't want to hold the family accountable for how they raised the child. When I was growing up, it was more than rude to drive up to someone's house with a rifle and try to steal their stuff. Kids learn things like that from somewhere, either from example or by inaction. That leads to his family bearing some responsibility for him.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
$1:
I hope she can overcome her trauma, because that's when healing starts. That's what most of us are trying to do, heal and move on. But no one can move on when it's the mistakes of the past that people dwell on.
So it is not Canada's fault. Canada has apologized. It's her fault for her failure to "move on." I don't accept that. If I am going to cheer for Canadians in the Olympics, then I am going to accept responsibility for our past and do what I can to make it better. To me, that is responsibility.
That is you. I am not going to live my life feeling guilt for things I had no choice in. I feel no guilt for the bombing of Hiroshima. I did not start the fires that burnt Chicago, or London. I did not invade Hawaii. And I did not hurt that lady.
Of course it's Canada's fault. And Canada apologized to her for mistakes of the past, as is right. I do know that accepting an apology is part of the healing process, and I hope she can heal. If she doesn't want to or isn't able to, then I am sad that she may never recover from her trauma.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Zip Zip:
Maybe if your people would just stop drinking and committing crime they wouldn't be in jail. So you got taken away from your family? We meant well. Quit whining. Move on
Dr.C Dr.C:
Again, no one is saying that either. You need to slow down and read.
$1:
Well zippy have your people stop doing the crime and they won't be in jail. Stop stabbing someone for walking down the street with a case of beer.
$1:
Already is, when the Indians are whining
$1:
Maybe if these assholes raised their kids to respect other people and their property they wouldn't have to worry about that happening.
I don't think I'm the one who needs to slow down and read.
I was speaking only for myself. I try to ignore others when they write shit like that. It's all too common around here, and I'd just raise my blood pressure if I let it get to me.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
$1:
Is alcohol a factor in Native rates of crime? I'm willing to bet. So is poverty, and the fact many have to put themselves in bad situations in order to survive. But so is apathy, and tribal elders that put people in those situations.
And maybe, just maybe, the acts of Canada too. Like the 60s Scoop and the residential school system and the documented systemic racism I note that one was rather conveniently left out.
You'll forgive me if my list is incomplete, I have only so many hours in a day and can't enumerate all the injustices Canada has heaped upon First Nations. Let's not forget the Indian Hospitals while we're at it. A particularity sick chapter in our history.
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:33 am
Racists come in all colours, and a bullshit narrative grows. Nice of CBC to post this.
Coach85 @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:35 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'm not dodging. Just pointing out that not every Indian reserve is rife with problems.
You are dodging.
I don't understand your method here. You talk about ways to fix relations yet you can't tell us specifically how this will help our First Nations.
If you don't have an answer, just say so. Although, your actions have already told us that.
Zipperfish @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:32 am
Coach85 Coach85:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'm not dodging. Just pointing out that not every Indian reserve is rife with problems.
You are dodging.
I don't understand your method here. You talk about ways to fix relations yet you can't tell us specifically how this will help our First Nations.
If you don't have an answer, just say so. Although, your actions have already told us that.
I would say that recognizing Canada's legal responsibilities would lead to more First Nations control over their land, which would give them more control over their future, which would result in less poverty and crime.
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:41 am
How much did DeBeers invest into Attawapiskat? Why isn't it a shining example of propsperity and progress?
martin14 @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:55 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
How much did DeBeers invest into Attawapiskat? Why isn't it a shining example of propsperity and progress?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/a ... -1.1327593
article from 2013.
$300 million over the years.
Should have been paving the streets with gold.
Another example of more money hitting the reality....
It's never enough money.
Mine should close next year.
Zipperfish @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:28 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
I must be missing something because your links don't mention anything we're discussing. But the first question is when did UN declarations supersede Canadian laws because it sure doesn't seem like it has any legal standing in Canada except when globalists trot it out to try and baffle the masses with it?
What you did was quote the Indian Act, and I said that the Indian Act was the relevant statute, because the Constitution, including S 35, is the Supreme law of Canada. Which remains true despite all the bafflegab you posted.
I also said that Canada was signatory to UNDRIP which calls for free, prior informed consent, which is also true.
First Nations can and have stopped projects. The New Prosperity mine on Tsilqot'in territory in BC, for example. The Gov't of Canada can overrule based on the national interest, but it has to be justified. I imagine we'll see the limits of that justification in court cases around the Site C dam and the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
Zipperfish @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:45 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Crimes are crimes, and Canada has apologized for it's crimes. Quite a bit different than why someone might be in jail. Sickeningly enough, what Canada did to them was legal at the time. Why they are in jail probably wasn't.
And you know that.
And you know that.
I wasn't intending to be obtuse, I was trying to point out that an apology doesn't cut it, despite the "legality" of the actions. Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Apartheid was legal.
I think most Canadians agree which is why this government is moving towards reconciliation.
$1:
Canada might. I don't.
"Might"? You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that there is a problem of racism against indigenous peoples in Canada.
$1:
It's also telling that you want to hold me responsible for things that happened before I was born, but don't want to hold the family accountable for how they raised the child. When I was growing up, it was more than rude to drive up to someone's house with a rifle and try to steal their stuff. Kids learn things like that from somewhere, either from example or by inaction. That leads to his family bearing some responsibility for him.
Kids do learn things. The kind of things learned on a reserve--where most of the elders were taken from their families to residential schools, is probably a lot different. The elders didn't learn from there parents. They were taken from them and taught by nuns to get the Indian out of them, often beaten and abused. Then sent back. So that's clearly going to create a big schism and you shouldn't expect that their upbringing would be similar to yours.
$1:
I was speaking only for myself. I try to ignore others when they write shit like that. It's all too common around here, and I'd just raise my blood pressure if I let it get to me.
No I'm afraid you weren't. You said "No one is saying that..." You were explicitly speaking for others.
$1:
You'll forgive me if my list is incomplete, I have only so many hours in a day and can't enumerate all the injustices Canada has heaped upon First Nations. Let's not forget the Indian Hospitals while we're at it. A particularity sick chapter in our history.
It wasn't that the list was incomplete, it was just that none of your examples included acts by Canada.
Coach85 @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:53 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I would say that recognizing Canada's legal responsibilities would lead to more First Nations control over their land, which would give them more control over their future, which would result in less poverty and crime.
Thanks.
How does more control over the land equate to a better future and less poverty and crime?
Is it a financial thing?
Zipperfish @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:11 pm
Coach85 Coach85:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I would say that recognizing Canada's legal responsibilities would lead to more First Nations control over their land, which would give them more control over their future, which would result in less poverty and crime.
Thanks.
How does more control over the land equate to a better future and less poverty and crime?
Is it a financial thing?
No, a control thing. A power thing. Pursuit of happiness.
Freakinoldguy @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:31 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
I must be missing something because your links don't mention anything we're discussing. But the first question is when did UN declarations supersede Canadian laws because it sure doesn't seem like it has any legal standing in Canada except when globalists trot it out to try and baffle the masses with it?
What you did was quote the Indian Act, and I said that the Indian Act was the relevant statute, because the Constitution, including S 35, is the Supreme law of Canada. Which remains true despite all the bafflegab you posted.
I also said that Canada was signatory to UNDRIP which calls for free, prior informed consent, which is also true.
First Nations can and have stopped projects. The New Prosperity mine on Tsilqot'in territory in BC, for example. The Gov't of Canada can overrule based on the national interest, but it has to be justified. I imagine we'll see the limits of that justification in court cases around the Site C dam and the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
Natives and whites can and have stopped "projects" but and this is a big but. The projects I'm talking about are the ones "deemed to be in the interest of Canada" which means that it's like a not withstanding clause for the Gov't so they can put through projects that benefit all of Canada. Now the caveat with this law is that the Gov't still has to take care of the natives but it doesn't say the Natives can stop it.
Here's the Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Coldwater Band's legal action.
T
$1:
he Federal Court of Appeal has ruled against Kinder Morgan Canada and the federal government in relation to the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline.
Tuesday's ruling states the federal government failed in its legal obligation to act in the best interests of the Coldwater Indian Band when it neglected to modernize the terms of a 1952 decision that allowed Kinder Morgan to use Coldwater's reserve for the pipeline.
Coldwater Indian Band, which is located about 12 kilometres south of Merritt, B.C., has about 860 members, half of which live on the reserve.
The existing Trans Mountain Pipeline was constructed through the reserve in 1952.
At the time, the band received a one-time payment of $1,292.
Failure to scrutinize 1952 terms
The ruling states the minister of Indigenous affairs failed to ensure the terms authorizing Kinder Morgan's use of the reserve were updated from the outdated terms of 1952.
According to court documents, the minister approved the transfer without properly scrutinizing the transaction.
"In the circumstance, particularly in light of the importance of Coldwater's interest in its reserve lands, the Crown was under a continuing duty to preserve and protect the band's interest in the reserve land from an exploitive or improvident bargain," the decision reads.
"The minister's failure to assess the current and ongoing impact of the continuation of the easement on Coldwater's right to use and enjoy its lands rendered his decision unreasonable."
'This is a great day'
In a release issued on Wednesday, Coldwater's chief and council said they were happy with the court's decision.
"We are very happy that the court recognized the importance of our land to the Coldwater people and that it is holding the Crown to a high standard of conduct in making decisions about our land," said Coldwater Chief Lee Spahan.
"Now things must change. This is a great day for Coldwater and all First Nations."
No impact for Trans Mountain
Trans Mountain spokesperson Ali Hounsell wrote in an email that the ruling changes little for the company.
"The Court's decision does not affect the day-to-day operations of the Trans Mountain Pipeline nor the Trans Mountain Expansion Project," she wrote.
But Spahan said the decision will help Coldwater members fight to protect their land.
The press secretary to Crown-Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett says she would like to work with the Coldwater leadership to address the issues in the ruling and find a path forward.
Tuesday's ruling states the federal government failed in its legal obligation to act in the best interests of the Coldwater Indian Band when it neglected to modernize the terms of a 1952 decision that allowed Kinder Morgan to use Coldwater's reserve for the pipeline.
Coldwater Indian Band, which is located about 12 kilometres south of Merritt, B.C., has about 860 members, half of which live on the reserve.
The existing Trans Mountain Pipeline was constructed through the reserve in 1952.
At the time, the band received a one-time payment of $1,292.
Failure to scrutinize 1952 terms
The ruling states the minister of Indigenous affairs failed to ensure the terms authorizing Kinder Morgan's use of the reserve were updated from the outdated terms of 1952.
According to court documents, the minister approved the transfer without properly scrutinizing the transaction.
"In the circumstance, particularly in light of the importance of Coldwater's interest in its reserve lands, the Crown was under a continuing duty to preserve and protect the band's interest in the reserve land from an exploitive or improvident bargain," the decision reads.
"The minister's failure to assess the current and ongoing impact of the continuation of the easement on Coldwater's right to use and enjoy its lands rendered his decision unreasonable."
'This is a great day'
In a release issued on Wednesday, Coldwater's chief and council said they were happy with the court's decision.
"We are very happy that the court recognized the importance of our land to the Coldwater people and that it is holding the Crown to a high standard of conduct in making decisions about our land," said Coldwater Chief Lee Spahan.
"Now things must change. This is a great day for Coldwater and all First Nations."
No impact for Trans Mountain
Trans Mountain spokesperson Ali Hounsell wrote in an email that the ruling changes little for the company.
"The Court's decision does not affect the day-to-day operations of the Trans Mountain Pipeline nor the Trans Mountain Expansion Project," she wrote.
But Spahan said the decision will help Coldwater members fight to protect their land.
The press secretary to Crown-Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett says she would like to work with the Coldwater leadership to address the issues in the ruling and find a path forward.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4309584
So the pipeline goes forward and the Natives still have no legal right to stop it short of more court cases which given the status of the project will likely end with the same result.
If the Natives can legally stop the Trans Mountain Pipeline why are they resorting to this?
$1:
'Indication of last resort'
George says he was asked by spiritual leaders and elders in his community to do something to stop the pipeline and says they've been doing ceremonies for two years since the pipeline was approved.
On Tuesday, members of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation launched a volunteer recruitment drive via a network of Indigenous communities, environmental groups and concerned Canadians.
One of the groups supporting the action is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Bob Chamberlin is the chief councillor for the Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis First Nation and vice president of the UBCIC.
He says demonstrations like this are a last resort for First Nations people.
"It's at a point of exasperation of engaging in due diligence with government. We are constantly pointing to the government's lack of embracing its very own laws," Chamberlin said.
He says governments need to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and adhere to the notions of Indigenous rights to free, prior and informed consent.
B.C. grand chief responds to Alberta premier on Trans Mountain, warning it 'will never see the light of day'
The federal government approved the 1,147-kilometre pipeline project in November 2016. The detailed route approval process will determine the exact placement of the new pipeline.
The project is currently on hold until the route is approved. The B.C. government, meanwhile, has proposed to restrict any increase in diluted bitumen shipments until it conducts more spill response studies. The Alberta government has called for an immediate boycott of B.C. wine in retaliation.
George says he was asked by spiritual leaders and elders in his community to do something to stop the pipeline and says they've been doing ceremonies for two years since the pipeline was approved.
On Tuesday, members of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation launched a volunteer recruitment drive via a network of Indigenous communities, environmental groups and concerned Canadians.
One of the groups supporting the action is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Bob Chamberlin is the chief councillor for the Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis First Nation and vice president of the UBCIC.
He says demonstrations like this are a last resort for First Nations people.
"It's at a point of exasperation of engaging in due diligence with government. We are constantly pointing to the government's lack of embracing its very own laws," Chamberlin said.
He says governments need to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and adhere to the notions of Indigenous rights to free, prior and informed consent.
B.C. grand chief responds to Alberta premier on Trans Mountain, warning it 'will never see the light of day'
The federal government approved the 1,147-kilometre pipeline project in November 2016. The detailed route approval process will determine the exact placement of the new pipeline.
The project is currently on hold until the route is approved. The B.C. government, meanwhile, has proposed to restrict any increase in diluted bitumen shipments until it conducts more spill response studies. The Alberta government has called for an immediate boycott of B.C. wine in retaliation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4525023
So if natives can legally stop any project they want why did they try the court route and when that failed why are they resorting to civil disobedience? It certainly doesn't sound like
$1:
Wrong-o. Neither the Indian Act nor reserves have fuck all to do with it. Section 35 of the Constitution applies. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada ultra vires of the Indian Act.
Also, Article 32(2) of the UN Declaration of the Rights of INdigenous Peoples, to which Canada is signatory:
Also, Article 32(2) of the UN Declaration of the Rights of INdigenous Peoples, to which Canada is signatory:
is accurate because if it was the Trans Mountain pipeline would have been stopped long ago But, why do you keep harping on a UN declaration that has no legal standing in Canada?
Besides if you'd have been paying attention you'd have noticed that gov'ts even this one have no problem blowing off thing that are inconvenient for them. All you have to do is look at Trudeau's disregarding of the 3 treaties we have with various countries about the legalizing of drugs.
Coach85 @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:14 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Coach85 Coach85:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I would say that recognizing Canada's legal responsibilities would lead to more First Nations control over their land, which would give them more control over their future, which would result in less poverty and crime.
Thanks.
How does more control over the land equate to a better future and less poverty and crime?
Is it a financial thing?
No, a control thing. A power thing. Pursuit of happiness.
I find that ridiculous. Here’s why.
Natives have the power to purchase a home, property, a business, etc. Their pursuit of happiness is not limited except by their own minds. They do not have to stay on a reserve.
You haven’t yet proven, beyond your opinion, that what your suggesting will have any positive impact on our Indigenous people.
Mowich @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:36 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
First Nations can and have stopped projects. The New Prosperity mine on Tsilqot'in territory in BC, for example. The Gov't of Canada can overrule based on the national interest, but it has to be justified. I imagine we'll see the limits of that justification in court cases around the Site C dam and the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
The Kinder-Morgan pipeline will be built. There is no justification what-so-ever for FN people to try and stop it simply because they want too.
Mowich @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:37 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Racists come in all colours, and a bullshit narrative grows. Nice of CBC to post this.
Surprised me to see that photo published by the CBC who have made a point of only playing to the FN narrative.
Zipperfish @ Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:11 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
is accurate because if it was the Trans Mountain pipeline would have been stopped long ago But, why do you keep harping on a UN declaration that has no legal standing in Canada?
Besides if you'd have been paying attention you'd have noticed that gov'ts even this one have no problem blowing off thing that are inconvenient for them. All you have to do is look at Trudeau's disregarding of the 3 treaties we have with various countries about the legalizing of drugs.
I said the Indian Act didn't apply, and that S. 35 of the Constitution was the more relevant legal statute. Nothing you've said has changed that. As a matter of fact all you've done is argue about the significance and relevance of S.35 of the Constitution, which was my exact point to start with.
I don't think I'm "harping" on UNDRIP. I said Canada is signatory to it. Signing an international treaty isn't binding. It is indication that the signatory nation will enact domestic law and policy to enable the treaty. And Trudeau will be announcing a reconciliation agenda in the next few days I believe.
Trans Mountain. I'll guess we'll see that one in court. Some bands have signed on. Others haven't. Martin likes to go on about "mo money" but the problem KM has is that they have offered boatloads of money and some First Nations still want nothing to do with it. They've been down that road before, when the prairie indians go collect the $5 dollars a year they signed away their territories for.
Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next