Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
login

First nations patiences waning

Recommended Posts

This "cheif" has been starving his own danm people for years! . Simple.... Don't feed this buffoon.

Awwwww a hunger strike.... Looks how fat the chief is! This grand poobah of stealing from his tribe will have lots of time to think about it.... The body fat should equal months....

This "lady" with the dolce and gobana glasses need to quit lining her pockets and take care of her own role and duties.

She needs to be held accountable to her kin and the tax-payer. She is what keeps the town down.

Edited by Fletch 27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'Cheif' of Attawapiskat has gone on a hunger strike until the Queen or PM enter dialogue in regard to ignoring treaty.
Can anyone provide specifics of what treaty terms are supposedly being ignored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems her biggest gripe is about disclosure for finances of "chiefs"! Seems these "chiefs" have all formed a group too! And of only the "chiefs" are allowed in this group! They want closed-door "chief" meetings. Sounds like a "too many chiefs, not enough indians" kinda thing!

Let her rot on here little island in the ottawa river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where's charter.rights when you need him?
Someone with knowledge of the issues that is not hopelessly deluded would be more helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are disgusting lies being spread all over Facebook, inflaming people who don't even have a clue what they're upset about. Charter Rights, btw, would not be a welcome addition to this or any discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone provide specifics of what treaty terms are supposedly being ignored?

One article says " bill, C-45, which made changes to the Indian Act. It also reduces project approvals required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which affects waterways in aboriginal communities."

Treaty is with the crown, which is entrusted in the Canadian government for performance.

The native reserve areas are essentially protected land, although there are specific context of resource exploitation, but not despoilation"

Here is an article from First Perspective an aboriginal news source:

http://www.firstpers...of-our-treaties

It would be prudent to make waterways which feed native reserves protected, since there have been many instances of adverse health problems in native communities from despoilation of water resource - often matched with absent infrastrcuture due to no water sanitation facilities / waste sewage treatement in remote areas.

A lot of native communities depend on fishing and hunting for livelyhood.

Edited by login

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also reduces project approvals required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which affects waterways in aboriginal communities.
Yeesh. Reducing red tape is now a treaty violation???

But the linked article claims the problem is the reduction is the consensus required for land surrender. I think I would have to agree with the natives on this one. Land surrender should not happen without the clearly expressed will of the band (meaning super majority) otherwise we will have another Caledonia in 200 years.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeesh. Reducing red tape is now a treaty violation???

But the linked article claims the problem is the reduction is the consensus required for land surrender. I think I would have to agree with the natives on this one. Land surrender should not happen without the clearly expressed will of the band (meaning super majority) otherwise we will have another Caledonia in 200 years.

Well say you are a farmer. If I put toxic waste in your law, can you carry out your traditional farming activities?

But no its not just that, like I said the Indian Act was changed to allow partial band representation to give away their entire bands rights.

Its like saying your charter rights can be given away by two of your neighbours.

Here is the treaty

http://iportal.usask...aties/9_eng.pdf

The treaty boils down to

four dollars to each Indian and mining rights for precious metals extraction to the province of Ontario.

Edited by login

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well say you are a farmer. If I put toxic waste in your law, can you carry out your traditional farming activities?
Who says that is a consequence of reducing red tape? Dumping toxic waste is still restricted.
Its like saying your charter rights can be given away by two of your neighbours.
Except that is perfectly reasonable when you are talking the about 'collective' rights of aboriginals. Collective rights are not the same as individual rights and should not be confused. That said, I agree the clearly expressed will of the band is required (not unanimity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are disgusting lies being spread all over Facebook, inflaming people who don't even have a clue what they're upset about.

Can you give some examples of the "lies" smallc?

I think Spence's hunger strike extends the new activism of Chiefs in the spirit of the recent agreement between the Iroquois Caucus and the AFN and the Chiefs' march on Parliament Hill:

“This process of marginalizing our political leadership, along with the enforced segregation of our people is part of a deliberate (attempt) to isolate our people, marginalize our people and ultimately assimilate our people so that our rich heritage can be wiped out and the great bounty contained in our traditional lands be made available for exploitation by large multi-national companies,” wrote Spence.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/12/10/attawapiskat-chief-spence-says-not-afraid-to-die-as-she-launches-hunger-strike/

Spence is high profile and showed last year that she's not afraid to confront Harper in spite of him doing his best to discredit her and threatening to withhold funds if she didn't shut up, then putting her band under third party management as a way of stopping payment of salaries - hers included. She didn't flinch. She went to the media and exposed the government's harsh tactics.

She's carrying on the collective actions of Chiefs, who've been too long silenced by threats from Ottawa and reduced funding of bands with activist Chiefs.

I wish her and the Chiefs well in getting a treaty meeting with Harper. I think nationally they've shown him their power by derailing his pipeline fantasies, and perhaps, after blowing them off at last year's 'summit', he'll give them more serious consideration this year. :)

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KAY EVERYBODY VOTE OUT STEPHEN HARPER, HE IS TRYING TO REMOVE ALL NATIVE PEOPLE FROM RESERVES AND TAKING AWAY ABORIGINAL SELF GOVERNANCE AND POSSIBLY GIVE UP OUR TREATY STATUS, WE NEED TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS. VOTE HIM OUT BEFORE 2015!! IF ANYTHING FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE SHOULD BE KINGS AND QUEENS OF THESE NATIVE LANDS -CANADA.

-PASS THIS ON!

How about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to the chief that went to Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I"ve listen to the FN at Senate Committee hearings several times and they say they there have been promises after promises from both the PC, Liberals and now the Conservatives, with very little happening. Duncan was the Minister under Mulroney and nothing got done so why would that change now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are getting done now! Great changes that are long overdue.

This chief will simply need to budget her own finances now and release other funds to her band-members. This has got nothing to do with navigable waters, land, buffalo, t-pees or rickshaws. This lady is starving her own people..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says that is a consequence of reducing red tape? Dumping toxic waste is still restricted.

Then why is water quality being adversely effected in Northern areas of Ontario, especially in mining areas?

Except that is perfectly reasonable when you are talking the about 'collective' rights of aboriginals. Collective rights are not the same as individual rights and should not be confused. That said, I agree the clearly expressed will of the band is required (not unanimity).

Why is this? Why should one person be able to choose the fate of all the people, that is like one Canadian politician being able to sell out all canadians for something they wern't even elected for, can you imagine Stephen Harper ceeding Nova Scotia to the United States? That sort of thing would require a plebescite at the very least, and not just the 3 people who show up for a vote. It is absurd what you are suggesting.

I can't beleive you are suggesting that sovreign territorial integrety can be effected without a vote of all the holders of that property.

Edited by login

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is this? Why should one person be able to choose the fate of all the people
A strawman. The government is not suggesting this. The changes still require a majority vote to cede land. The only difference is a majority of ballots cast vs. a majority of voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KAY EVERYBODY VOTE OUT STEPHEN HARPER, HE IS TRYING TO REMOVE ALL NATIVE PEOPLE FROM RESERVES AND TAKING AWAY ABORIGINAL SELF GOVERNANCE AND POSSIBLY GIVE UP OUR TREATY STATUS, WE NEED TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS. VOTE HIM OUT BEFORE 2015!! IF ANYTHING FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE SHOULD BE KINGS AND QUEENS OF THESE NATIVE LANDS -CANADA.

-PASS THIS ON!

How about this?

Ahh ... kind of like "Make them (just) Canadians like everybody else. ONE LAW FOR ALL!"

Ya, we hear that here all the time.

It is Harper et al's fondest dream I'm sure.

That would be why Harper refused to sign the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples ... until it cost him a seat on the UN Security Council.

No secret there.

No "lies" either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. One law for all. Creating Bantustans is not the way to run Canada. If natives need help with training and transitional funding to join our society, let's provide that. But having little villages in the middle of nowhere with no economic justification, and then expecting them to have a nice middle class life is just insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh ... kind of like "Make them (just) Canadians like everybody else. ONE LAW FOR ALL!"

Ya, we hear that here all the time.

It is Harper et al's fondest dream I'm sure.

That would be why Harper refused to sign the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples ... until it cost him a seat on the UN Security Council.

No secret there.

No "lies" either. :)

I'm sure Harper would like that. So would I. He hasn't in any way tried to do that. All people should be equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A strawman. The government is not suggesting this. The changes still require a majority vote to cede land. The only difference is a majority of ballots cast vs. a majority of voters.

WRONG!

Majority of those who attend 'a meeting'

not majority of band members. What is quorum for the meeting hmm?

Also this is not something a simple majority should handle it should be an extreme super majority if not full acceptance by everyone for ceeding territory, since it is held collectively not by a corporation but by individuals who have ancestorial right individually, not due to being part of a group recognized as the government of those people there is a difference between individual rights and collective rights.

A part owner of a property does not have the ability to sell their partners share.

Edited by login

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not majority of band members. What is quorum for the meeting hmm?
Well that sounds like something that should be up to band to decide. Any organization needs to have rules to prevent the process from being abused. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Harper would like that. So would I. He hasn't in any way tried to do that. All people should be equal.

He'd like to ... and tried to ignore the UN Declaration, and snubbed the Chiefs at what was supposed to be a 'summit'. Harper is up against the realities of law now and the next summit will be more interesting.

All people are equal.

Some of us inherit collective land rights through our families. Others don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×