First Nation Issues

[Jimbob]

This is an issue all over Canada and the amount of misinformation is crazy. Yelling screaming and whining about it will not help nor will it change the LAWS. Here are a few points/facts that we need to understand.

1. First Nations are a Nation. That means they are not the same as the Canadian public. Canada is a nation and First Nation is a nation. They will always have different rules. Just like USA has different rules then us. This will always be TRUE. This will never change. We will never be one nation with all the same rules. Yelling that it is not fair will not change this. This means different laws and different rights for each group.

2. First Nations have the right to hunt/fish/use resources. Canadians do not have this right. It is not my right to use the resources. No court will uphold my right to hunt/fish because I don't have one. That means the government can change the law and thus change my privilege to hunt/fish. The government CANNOT take away the First Nation's right to hunt/fish/etc. (There is only one way they can, I'll explain later)

3. First Nations have first right to resources. If a resource is dwindling then Canadian privileges are first taken away before First Nation's are effected. This is law. The only way to take away the rights of the First Nation is if the species is at such a risk that there is no way to support any kind of harvest.

These things will not change. Government cannot change them. The courts will always hold up the rights that the First Nations have. Therefore the government will not waste there time creating laws that will just get thrown out in court.

It is within this framework that we must work. The above things will not change. So how do we move forward? What is the best approach for the wildlife? I think understanding the difficult (but real) situation we have here is important. Not everyone has the same rights. It is a reality that a different set of laws will apply to each group. First Nations will always have better access to hunting and fishing. We will lose opportunities and they will not. I hate that there is two groups but it is the reality of how this country was formed.

[IronNoggin]

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111113714/3175184-in-before-the-lock-3.jpg

[bearvalley]

This will be a good one.....

[srupp]

Use..not abuse..
Wildlife preservation tops indians demands
Consultation does NOT mean agreement..
97 % non indian Does mean something..versus 3% sponging adding nothing.
I still think 100 year time out to cool off.
Steven

[Xenomorph]

http://i66.tinypic.com/2hefq6d.jpg

[silvertipp]

Nobody is disputing the fact that they have different rules
the problem lies with the abuse of those laws
ie:the selling of fish is that a right I was unaware of

[Walking Buffalo]

The People and Governments change "Rights" all the time.

Even those that were written in Stone.

[RyoTHC]

Same country same laws..
One day we will get politicians with a back bone.
You can't pander to less than 5 percent of a population for any length of time without an eventual political backlash. My freezer will never go empty no matter what the political climate is though I'll tell you they much.

[RyoTHC]

Nobody is disputing the fact that they have different rules
the problem lies with the abuse of those laws
ie:the selling of fish is that a right I was unaware of

They come door to door where I live trying to sell"Their" salmon.

[338win mag]

This is an issue all over Canada and the amount of misinformation is crazy. Yelling screaming and whining about it will not help nor will it change the LAWS. Here are a few points/facts that we need to understand.

1. First Nations are a Nation. That means they are not the same as the Canadian public. Canada is a nation and First Nation is a nation. They will always have different rules. Just like USA has different rules then us. This will always be TRUE. This will never change. We will never be one nation with all the same rules. Yelling that it is not fair will not change this. This means different laws and different rights for each group.

2. First Nations have the right to hunt/fish/use resources. Canadians do not have this right. It is not my right to use the resources. No court will uphold my right to hunt/fish because I don't have one. That means the government can change the law and thus change my privilege to hunt/fish. The government CANNOT take away the First Nation's right to hunt/fish/etc. (There is only one way they can, I'll explain later)

3. First Nations have first right to resources. If a resource is dwindling then Canadian privileges are first taken away before First Nation's are effected. This is law. The only way to take away the rights of the First Nation is if the species is at such a risk that there is no way to support any kind of harvest.

These things will not change. Government cannot change them. The courts will always hold up the rights that the First Nations have. Therefore the government will not waste there time creating laws that will just get thrown out in court.

It is within this framework that we must work. The above things will not change. So how do we move forward? What is the best approach for the wildlife? I think understanding the difficult (but real) situation we have here is important. Not everyone has the same rights. It is a reality that a different set of laws will apply to each group. First Nations will always have better access to hunting and fishing. We will lose opportunities and they will not. I hate that there is two groups but it is the reality of how this country was formed.
I think its pretty well understood and accepted generally, but where does it say that they can **** over all other citizens and seemingly make them subjects under them?

[David]

OK - I'll bite...


This is an issue all over Canada and the amount of misinformation is crazy. Yelling screaming and whining about it will not help nor will it change the LAWS. Here are a few points/facts that we need to understand.

MISLEADING. Most of Canada is covered by Treaty whereas most of BC is not. The issue(s) in the rest of Canada are whether or not Treaties are being followed, in BC it is much more complicated.



1. First Nations are a Nation. That means they are not the same as the Canadian public. Canada is a nation and First Nation is a nation. They will always have different rules. Just like USA has different rules then us. This will always be TRUE. This will never change. We will never be one nation with all the same rules. Yelling that it is not fair will not change this. This means different laws and different rights for each group.

FALSE. A Nation is a culturally distinct group of people - think the Basques in Spain or the Scots in England. There is no "First Nation" Nation - there are individual Nations like the Haida. A Nation is completely separate from a State (or country) - a Nation is homogenous, a country is not necessarily so. England is a State of which Scotland is a part.

There is legal precedent where a First Nation is granted specific powers within the State - Nunavut and Haida Gwaii are probably the two best examples within Canada. They are NOT separate states and even when the courts point to "unceded territory" (the legal definition, not the current popular usage amongst First Nations apologists) they are quick to affirm that this is still within the laws of Canada.



2. First Nations have the right to hunt/fish/use resources. Canadians do not have this right. It is not my right to use the resources. No court will uphold my right to hunt/fish because I don't have one. That means the government can change the law and thus change my privilege to hunt/fish. The government CANNOT take away the First Nation's right to hunt/fish/etc. (There is only one way they can, I'll explain later)

MISLEADING. The majority (but not all) First Nations, under specific Treaties and Canadian Laws, have the right to hunt and fish FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES and ONLY IN SPECIFIC AREAS. Neither First Nations nor Canadians have a specific right to resources (resource as a term includes such things as mineral rights).



3. First Nations have first right to resources. If a resource is dwindling then Canadian privileges are first taken away before First Nation's are effected. This is law. The only way to take away the rights of the First Nation is if the species is at such a risk that there is no way to support any kind of harvest.

FALSE and MISLEADING. As noted above, your definition of resources is incorrect. Also as noted above the right to hunt/fish is often tied to a specific need (e.g. cultural & ceremonial reasons) and location. First Nations "rights" have a "cascading effect" and more importantly it is still the relevant Canadian governmental department that decides when those rights can be infringed.



These things will not change. Government cannot change them. The courts will always hold up the rights that the First Nations have. Therefore the government will not waste there time creating laws that will just get thrown out in court.

It is within this framework that we must work. The above things will not change. So how do we move forward? What is the best approach for the wildlife? I think understanding the difficult (but real) situation we have here is important. Not everyone has the same rights. It is a reality that a different set of laws will apply to each group. First Nations will always have better access to hunting and fishing. We will lose opportunities and they will not. I hate that there is two groups but it is the reality of how this country was formed.

NOPE. The courts act on what is implemented by Government (e.g. signed Treaties, the Charter, etc.) as much as many people point to the Court being activist - they still base their decisions in part on existing law.

The other thing Courts and Governments look at is the social environment and social justice (this has gone on forever - e.g. women getting the vote). This means Governments and Courts often lag what is happening within our social fabric (gay rights). In the case of First Nations look at something like the "Salish Sea" - there is no such thing! It is not a Sea! It was never called "Salish"! It was never seen as "property" of the Salish people! But it has entered our nomenclature. There are now two options: it can go from just being nomenclature to being "official" - maps being changed, etc. or society can change again and we can go back to referring to the Georgia Straight or come up with an entirely new name.

How soon until the majority has some First Nations blood, or on the opposite end a "blood quantum" to be defined as First Nations is re-introduced (did you know in the school system if you "identify" as First Nations you are considered First Nations?)

I have now eaten the bait I took.

[RyoTHC]

It's funny the government can't take away said rights as y
OP claims, but that very government is the one who told me I don't have enough first nation blood in me to receive status, though numerous people in my family do.. how's this make sense ? How do they know how I was raised ? One white woman too many in the family tree?

[DarekG]

Is this another joke post, like that one about video games causing violence?

[bearvalley]

Use..not abuse
97 % non indian Does mean something..versus 3% sponging adding nothing.
Steven

The way it works Steven is that the 3% can legally use 50% of what’s deemed to be the harvestable share of wildlife.
My bet is that if the 3% ever make accountability mandatory the 97% might find that they have been the abusers.
Just saying.....we had best think of our own closets....make sure we have no skeletons?

[IronNoggin]

O c'mon!!
Bring on the Apologists!
WTH is Jazzy, Danny who ain't 29, and their host of left-minded dribblers??
I mean really, this thread NEEDS some "Spicy", Holier Than Thou, Indignant Retorts! :lol:

Btw David: Well Presented! Well worth the taste of the bait! KUDOS! https://bigshotsbc.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

Cheers,
Nog

[David]

but that very government is the one who told me I don't have enough first nation blood in me to receive status, though numerous people in my family do.. how's this make sense ? How do they know how I was raised ? One white woman too many in the family tree?

How recently was this? (and for those who don't know - yes whether you counted as "Indian" under the act depended on things like if it was your mother or father who was Indian, what % etc.)
Which band/nation under which Treaty?
A lot (but not all) of that stuff has been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

[bearvalley]

Btw David: Well Presented! Well worth the taste of the bait! KUDOS! https://bigshotsbc.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

Cheers,
Nog

A guy would have to have the Canadian constitution in one hand, copies of who has treaties and who doesn't to either agree or disagree with the points David made.
Then along would come the lawyers...who will always keep agreement disagreement.
Nog, you and I will never live long enough to see all the rights and wrongs ironed out in this issue.

[IronNoggin]

Nog, you and I will never live long enough to see all the rights and wrongs ironed out in this issue.

Yep. Pretty much a Guarantee on this one alright! https://bigshotsbc.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

Cheers,
Nog

[Pemby_mess]

Nobody is disputing the fact that they have different rules
the problem lies with the abuse of those laws
ie:the selling of fish is that a right I was unaware of

Yes.....you were unaware

[Jelvis]

RyoTHC you can get your Status Card if you can prove blood now, it's changed in the last few year, get a hold of the process -- on computer
-- get the codes and apply, used to be 25 % Indian blood at least or you were " Too white to be right! " Not based on % now. If you got it, you got it!
Jel -- if you have actual blood in your mom or dad's blood then you are now allowed to apply so I know two guys that changed it, and got their number --

[Xenomorph]

A guy would have to have the Canadian constitution in one hand, copies of who has treaties and who doesn't to either agree or disagree with the points David made.
Then along would come the lawyers...who will always keep agreement disagreement.
Nog, you and I will never live long enough to see all the rights and wrongs ironed out in this issue.

You're optimistic my friend, I don't think my grandchildren will see it. First things need to go to shits, before the common sense prevails and things get ironed out back to "proper".

[Linksman313]

[QUOTE=David;2030352]

How soon until the majority has some First Nations blood, or on the opposite end a "blood quantum" to be defined as First Nations is re-introduced (did you know in the school system if you "identify" as First Nations you are considered First Nations?)
QUOTE]

Just to qualify the absurdity, if you or any of your children in the current BC/Alta school system "identify" as a Unicorn pooping rainbows, you are then considered and treated accordingly as a Unicorn pooping rainbows.

For an interesting read look up Ontario Iroquois nations struggles with "blood quantum" in the mid nineties, turned many a "first nation" against eachother and threatened the actual legal existence of certain "reserves" in the area.

[Pemby_mess]

One thing that seems confusing for some, is there are rights distributed to individuals, under the indian act, and common law that pertains to a "first nation" as a legal collective entity. Not the same thing.

[Pemby_mess]

You're optimistic my friend, I don't think my grandchildren will see it. First things need to go to shits, before the common sense prevails and things get ironed out back to "proper".

if you could unambiguously define "proper", that would be tremendous, thanks.

[Jelvis]

One family - A dad, a mom - 2 sons and 2 daughters -- Mom Indian dad German -- for instance -- mixed blood (Metis)
1. one son can be darker then the others, one girl can have natural blonde hair, one can have raven black color.
2. one can laugh like their dad, one smiles just like it's momma - getting the picture?
3. one wars like her mom, gotta real worked up existence, dee udder? Calm as a lark.
4. one son hunts just like his dad, it should be clear as a bell by now? Ding Dong!

Jelly Bones n Blood -- My name cood b Judd or Jake, Ruby or Snake -- Look like who ever -- dna and blood -- I don't live in Flood, I got Hope, in Looey Creek! Hahaha
---------------------------> Mule deer Zeek says, " High Folks Good Luck Eh! " Some big bucks on the ridges flolks, mule deer -- :grin: --

[Mosin]

Ok, fine they have their own rights cool...can they please exercise these rights without using the infrastructure built by "Canadian public", they wanna be seperate and yet use our roads, power, hospitals? Shouldn't be cherry picking what rules you wanna follow that benefit you and then claim to seperate when it benefits you. Exercise your right on your reserves than.

[srupp]

Hmm some bands are on board..consulation eventually becomes extortion..how much consultation..indian group just said no amount ..we will always be against this..hmmm that doesnt sound like they are open to this consultstion process..
Feds should just change the law..and go ahead with the pipeline.
Steven

[303savage]

. First Nations have first right to resources

Yep, I agree, but who give them the right to use our technology?

[Jelvis]

Indians work for Highways and the BC and Federal gov'ts. like all udderz. Hint - some are cops and c.o.s also -- fisheries people - on and on
Built those highways too not just you Mosin Hahahahaha
Indians are Canadian Army Vets also
---Indians are now computer brains with cell phones and can cut, paste and not waste whoa!

Jel -- Indians have worked with others for hundreds of years building the infrastructure and the Fraser Canyon routes, and the Coke also - on and on

[Jimbob]

No reason this can be discussed without getting locked and it turn into name calling and such.

My post is generalizing I know but I stand by it, semantics aside. I tried to put it in plain terms. It is extremely convoluted and complex. Treaties in some areas none in others but still rights. This can go down numerous rabbit holes but I think understanding the big picture is important.

So lets discuss this topic:

Can this change?

My opinion is no. If new PM comes in and says "NO MORE WE ARE ONE COUNTRY" and everything passes and new law is in place. I think FN's will just fight it in court and they will win. I think they will win because of how the country was settled.

England did not come over here and conquer the Indians. We are not where we are because we feel bad about what we did. Agreements were made nation to nation (treaties) and proclamations were made that said we would not steal FN land. When the courts make decision they go back to this stuff. You do not have to have be part of a treaty to have rights.

[Mosin]

Indians work for Highways and the BC and Federal gov'ts. like all udderz.
Built those highways too not just you Mosin Hahahahaha
Indians are Canadian Army Vets also
---Indians are now computer brains with cell phones and can cut, paste and not waste whoa!

Jel -- Indians have worked with others for hundreds of years building the infrastructure and the Fraser Canyon routes, and the Coke also - on and on

So why not just live and contribute like the rest of us? It's actually a pretty fair system, has its problems but when you look at how crummy other countries run themselves it's very evident ours will the closet thing to fair. No one should have special privileges.

[Pemby_mess]

Ok, fine they have their own rights cool...can they please exercise these rights without using the infrastructure built by "Canadian public", they wanna be seperate and yet use our roads, power, hospitals? Shouldn't be cherry picking what rules you wanna follow that benefit you and then claim to seperate when it benefits you. Exercise your right on your reserves than.

the reserve system never conformed to Canadian Law - that's one problem, and so, more and more, the land claims look to be a successful endeavour for them. The individual rights described in the indian act don't come come without concessions and are accordingly controversial.

I don't think any FN is advocating for complete separation. The right to self-determination is something that is talked a lot about, and is of course also controversial. You imply the the FN haven't also had a part in building the infrastructure you mention. Why should they give up access to the stuff they've helped build for the common Canadian identity?

[Jimbob]

Ok, fine they have their own rights cool...can they please exercise these rights without using the infrastructure built by "Canadian public", they wanna be seperate and yet use our roads, power, hospitals? Shouldn't be cherry picking what rules you wanna follow that benefit you and then claim to seperate when it benefits you. Exercise your right on your reserves than.

Their rights extend to their territory no just their reserve. Also many of the treaties said health care education etc would be provided. Much of the agreement was "If we can use your land you can use our stuff" Now this is very general overview of course.

[Pemby_mess]

Yep, I agree, but who give them the right to use our technology?

"our" technology? Lol

[Mosin]

No reason this can be discussed without getting locked and it turn into name calling and such.

My post is generalizing I know but I stand by it, semantics aside. I tried to put it in plain terms. It is extremely convoluted and complex. Treaties in some areas none in others but still rights. This can go down numerous rabbit holes but I think understanding the big picture is important.

So lets discuss this topic:

Can this change?

My opinion is no. If new PM comes in and says "NO MORE WE ARE ONE COUNTRY" and everything passes and new law is in place. I think FN's will just fight it in court and they will win. I think they will win because of how the country was settled.

England did not come over here and conquer the Indians. We are not where we are because we feel bad about what we did. Agreements were made nation to nation (treaties) and proclamations were made that said we would not steal FN land. When the courts make decision they go back to this stuff. You do not have to have be part of a treaty to have rights.

You guys are only getting what you want now because your dealing mostly with white politicians. In the coming generations more "children of immigrants" will hold political office, I don't think they will be as easily guilted. They will simply say "hey we never even did anything to you guys, my grandfather came here on a boat and worked in a sawmill and bought a house, you are expected to do the same and adhere to the same laws" ....this is just my opinion

[Pemby_mess]

You guys are only getting what you want now because your dealing mostly with white politicians. In the coming generations more "children of immigrants" will hold political office, I don't think they will be as easily guilted. They will simply say "hey we never even did anything to you guys, my grandfather came here on a boat and worked in a sawmill and bought a house, you are expected to do the same and adhere to the same laws" ....this is just my opinion

I think the more first generation Canadians read and learn about the law, the more they will come to respect it and choose to act with it as a guide for building the future societies they want to see. I always have had the utmost respect for children of immigrants. However, when they see where they come from, understand what makes Canada different, and why their parents chose to come here, they often have an about face in attitude.

Understanding the law, and how it applies to any given situation isn't about guilt. Did Europeans make the initial treaty agreements based on guilt?

[Jimbob]

You guys are only getting what you want now because your dealing mostly with white politicians. In the coming generations more "children of immigrants" will hold political office, I don't think they will be as easily guilted. They will simply say "hey we never even did anything to you guys, my grandfather came here on a boat and worked in a sawmill and bought a house, you are expected to do the same and adhere to the same laws" ....this is just my opinion

um?? I'm not First Nation if that is what you mean by "You guys..".

So you think politicians will just say "enough"? BUT as soon as politicians try to change everything it will just end up in court.

I am more of a realist and not a dreamer. I would rather accurately view the situation and make the best of the possibilities instead of wishing for something that will never happen. I can be wrong about what's possible though.

[Pemby_mess]

You guys are only getting what you want now because your dealing mostly with white politicians. In the coming generations more "children of immigrants" will hold political office, I don't think they will be as easily guilted. They will simply say "hey we never even did anything to you guys, my grandfather came here on a boat and worked in a sawmill and bought a house, you are expected to do the same and adhere to the same laws" ....this is just my opinion

The law in terms of land title and the right to hunt and fish, have absolutely zero to with anything we "did to them". Those formerly mentioned aspects of the relationship by far predate any type of institutional racism inside of the confederacy; and certainly predate any notions of white guilt associated with the past.

[Mulehahn]

My apologies, I quoted the wrong person in the first version of this post

But that is assuming that it is the children of immigrants who will be the ones evoking change. I don't see it that way. I read a study that in about 10 years whites will be the minority in North America. Now, I think that is too short but not far off. Many immigrants come to Canada from places where the persecution they faced make a residential school look like a stint in juvie; no doubt they were bad but nothing compared to the death camps in Burma. When they see the dreams that brought them to Canada being destroyed or healed ransom by 3% of the population in reconciliation for wrongs committed that they were in no way a part of they will certainly question it and do much more. It will not be in generations down the road, but by the ones coming here today who will in office 10 years from now.

[Danny_29]

Not even one mention of civil war? I'm impressed haha

[scoutlt1]

Not even one mention of civil war? I'm impressed haha

Maybe there's no need to "mention" it.

And maybe it's not so f***ing funny....

[Mulehahn]

Why would there be a civil war, unless you mean among First Nations? Many of the bands along the route were in favour of the pipeline and what it would bring to there community. They were poised to receive significant infrastructure upgrades, jobs, general income. All gone because of 18 (I believe that is the number of bands who filed suits, please correct me if I am wrong) were opposed. There were more than that in Alberta alone who supported it, plus the ones in BC who had signed. What are they to do now?

For all the pomp and bluster that gets tossed around in this site 99% of the people here support First Nation rights on hunting and fishing and consultation. No one wants to see what the mistakes of the past repeated or compounded. But the reality is the vast, vast majority of humans will look after their own best interests and when 96% are having jobs taken, prices sky, schools closed, taxes increased all so a select minority of the percent of the other 4% can get there way something is going to happen. Civil war? Doubtful, but something.

[BromBones]

I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on these issues. Gonna get a lot worse before we see any improvement, if that's even possible (improvement, I mean)

10 years from now if white guy wants to hunt, better divorce his wife and marry one with a status card. :p

[325]

I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on these issues. Gonna get a lot worse before we see any improvement, if that's even possible (improvement, I mean)

10 years from now if white guy wants to hunt, better divorce his wife and marry one with a status card. :p

Or pay "trespass" fees to the natives

[338win mag]

The Province is committed to reconciliation and adherence to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
^^^^^^^
I copied this statement from the province in the thread started by tinhorse
This is the problem here,,, remind me why we are listening to the UN?

[Weatherby Fan]

I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on these issues. Gonna get a lot worse before we see any improvement, if that's even possible (improvement, I mean)

10 years from now if white guy wants to hunt, better divorce his wife and marry one with a status card. :p

I hate to say it but you are spot on, its just starting.......and going to get extremely ugly, I feel terrible for future generations in this country

[Xenomorph]

if you could unambiguously define "proper", that would be tremendous, thanks.

Inherently oozing common sense, rules abided and respected by all.

[silvertipp]

Yes.....you were unawarecare to elaborate never heard of such a thing

[srupp]

Hmmm Notley should completely shut off ALL oil ..and fuels to BC..that should wipe the smirk off whoregan and basket weavers face...18 bands with just say no attitudes..compared to all of BC and Canadas needs..turdeau needs to change tge laws..legislation..get it built..so the Conservatives can win the next federal election..
Steven

[Pemby_mess]

The Province is committed to reconciliation and adherence to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
^^^^^^^
I copied this statement from the province in the thread started by tinhorse
This is the problem here,,, remind me why we are listening to the UN?

You're going to have a very different perspective on the UN if we end up on the planetary dark side of an authoritarian US, and China looking for new expansion opportunities.

[Pemby_mess]

care to elaborate never heard of such a thing

FN obviously have both FN commercial catch quotas, and standard commercial catch quotas. Therefore allowed to sell salmon by right. What, you think every Indian looking person selling fish, is doing so illegally?

You're ok with non- indigenous selling fish, but not FN doing the exact.same.thing? Why is that?

[Pemby_mess]

Hmmm Notley should completely shut off ALL oil ..and fuels to BC..that should wipe the smirk off whoregan and basket weavers face...18 bands with just say no attitudes..compared to all of BC and Canadas needs..turdeau needs to change tge laws..legislation..get it built..so the Conservatives can win the next federal election..
Steven

Obviously I think we should find a way to get the pipeline built. However cutting off land based crude delivery from a major port wouldn't accomplish much for Alberta's interests.

[Pemby_mess]

Inherently oozing common sense, rules abided and respected by all.

I think that is what the FN themselves are subjectively targeting as a goal.

[Jelvis]

If everyone obeys one law and never breaks it, then we cood save millions on police, Eh? Hell if no one hurt themselves, we woodn't need hospitals either Eh?
Jel -- starting to sound like you now Hahahahaha " If Wishes were Horses , many woody ride " ---

[338win mag]

You're going to have a very different perspective on the UN if we end up on the planetary dark side of an authoritarian US, and China looking for new expansion opportunities.
LOL, besides that.

[Jelvis]

Indians going to hire Donny Trump to do thee negotiations Hahahahahaha after Nafta yah get the new one called, " Shafta "
Jel Hahahaha -- we went from NAFTA tah SHAFTA so FASTAH -- now I'm PLASTAHED ! SHAFTA with Donny and Danny -- Jist jokin folks don't flip ok?

[Grumpa Joe]

This road that the Provincial and Federal governments are blithely traipsing down is creating more resentment, not tolerance.

[Jelvis]

I tell people and Grumpa I gotta tell you too, blaming the BC Government imho is wrong! Blaming the Feds and Justine for the way you feel inside with resentment, and it,s causing no contentment only confusion, with obstrusion and the same ol same ol --
Jello - Hello? -- It's not Justeen or Horgan's Heroes either or Gordiver --

[Grumpa Joe]

I tell people and Grumpa I gotta tell you too, blaming the BC Government imho is wrong! Blaming the Feds and Justine for the way you feel inside with resentment, and it;s causing confusion, why is that?
Jello - Hello? -- It's not Justeen or Horgan's Heroes either or Gordiver --

If you just examine a few of the major news stories and the trends in education it is easy to see why people are getting resentful

-The removal of J.A. MacDonald's statue in Victoria.
-as soon as there is any issue involving "caucasians" and First Nations the race card is played against the "caucasians".
-The elimination of the Grizzly hunt.
-Yesterday's suspension of LEH and moose hunting in the Chilcotin for any but First Nations.
-The ongoing, perceived or real, salmon fishing disputes.
-The ruling against the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion.
-Implementation of First Nations English 12 and Socials 12 classes and the need to include a large percentage of First Nations books in general English classes.
-Naming all new schools using First Nations names. Ironic because this horrible education system is always blamed for the failure of First Nations youth.
-The forced implementation of First Nations cultural ceremonies and constant reminder of the "unceded" land that everything is built on. This smudging is supposed to be strictly voluntary (straight from the lips of a First Nations individual) yet at every municipal or provincial gathering the standard speech is given without offering to excuse those that do not wish to be present. I am forced to go through it every time there is a gathering in the school district, many insisting on holding hands, not going to do it. If I were to walk out I can only imagine the repercussions.

It may sound like I am a grumpy old man but it (grumpy) is far from the truth. I have historically been extremely tolerant and sympathetic but I am becoming extremely tired of being made to feel shame about what happened centuries ago. Who is advocating and crying for the Celts, Druids, Gauls, Hittites, Philistines, Carthaginians and any other ethnic group that have been assimilated or "cleansed" over the course of history? Activists are only too happy to say to give everything back to the First Nations but when queried if they own property why they don't sign the deed back over to the local band, they stammer that that won't happen. Let's see how the overwhelming majority would feel if the government mandated all property be transferred to FNs.

Just my take on where this politically correct path is taking people.

[Ohwildwon]

If you just examine a few of the major news stories and the trends in education it is easy to see why people are getting resentful

-The removal of J.A. MacDonald's statue in Victoria.
-as soon as there is any issue involving "caucasians" and First Nations the race card is played against the "caucasians".
-The elimination of the Grizzly hunt.
-Yesterday's suspension of LEH and moose hunting in the Chilcotin for any but First Nations.
-The ongoing, perceived or real, salmon fishing disputes.
-The ruling against the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion.
-Implementation of First Nations English 12 and Socials 12 classes and the need to include a large percentage of First Nations books in general English classes.
-Naming all new schools using First Nations names. Ironic because this horrible education system is always blamed for the failure of First Nations youth.
-The forced implementation of First Nations cultural ceremonies and constant reminder of the "unceded" land that everything is built on. This smudging is supposed to be strictly voluntary (straight from the lips of a First Nations individual) yet at every municipal or provincial gathering the standard speech is given without offering to excuse those that do not wish to be present. I am forced to go through it every time there is a gathering in the school district, many insisting on holding hands, not going to do it. If I were to walk out I can only imagine the repercussions.





It may sound like I am a grumpy old man but it (grumpy) is far from the truth. I have historically been extremely tolerant and sympathetic but I am becoming extremely tired of being made to feel shame about what happened centuries ago. Who is advocating and crying for the Celts, Druids, Gauls, Hittites, Philistines, Carthaginians and any other ethnic group that have been assimilated or "cleansed" over the course of history? Activists are only too happy to say to give everything back to the First Nations but when queried if they own property why they don't sign the deed back over to the local band, they stammer that that won't happen. Let's see how the overwhelming majority would feel if the government mandated all property be transferred to FNs.

Just my take on where this politically correct path is taking people.

Yep, good points..

[Jelvis]

Grumpa you must of studied this political correctness? To a T.
-- R U a retired ah debater?
Jello -- Joe - Grumpy --

[Jagermeister]

Yep. Pretty much a Guarantee on this one alright! https://bigshotsbc.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

Cheers,
Nogi figure that the two of you are young enough to witness a civil war.

[mike_b]

This is an issue all over Canada and the amount of misinformation is crazy. Yelling screaming and whining about it will not help nor will it change the LAWS. Here are a few points/facts that we need to understand.

1. First Nations are a Nation. That means they are not the same as the Canadian public. Canada is a nation and First Nation is a nation. They will always have different rules. Just like USA has different rules then us. This will always be TRUE. This will never change. We will never be one nation with all the same rules. Yelling that it is not fair will not change this. This means different laws and different rights for each group.

2. First Nations have the right to hunt/fish/use resources. Canadians do not have this right. It is not my right to use the resources. No court will uphold my right to hunt/fish because I don't have one. That means the government can change the law and thus change my privilege to hunt/fish. The government CANNOT take away the First Nation's right to hunt/fish/etc. (There is only one way they can, I'll explain later)

3. First Nations have first right to resources. If a resource is dwindling then Canadian privileges are first taken away before First Nation's are effected. This is law. The only way to take away the rights of the First Nation is if the species is at such a risk that there is no way to support any kind of harvest.

These things will not change. Government cannot change them. The courts will always hold up the rights that the First Nations have. Therefore the government will not waste there time creating laws that will just get thrown out in court.

It is within this framework that we must work. The above things will not change. So how do we move forward? What is the best approach for the wildlife? I think understanding the difficult (but real) situation we have here is important. Not everyone has the same rights. It is a reality that a different set of laws will apply to each group. First Nations will always have better access to hunting and fishing. We will lose opportunities and they will not. I hate that there is two groups but it is the reality of how this country was formed.

I actually felt brain cells die while reading this crap.....

[Jagermeister]

If you just examine a few of the major news stories and the trends in education it is easy to see why people are getting resentful

-The removal of J.A. MacDonald's statue in Victoria.
-as soon as there is any issue involving "caucasians" and First Nations the race card is played against the "caucasians".
-The elimination of the Grizzly hunt.
-Yesterday's suspension of LEH and moose hunting in the Chilcotin for any but First Nations.
-The ongoing, perceived or real, salmon fishing disputes.
-The ruling against the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion.
-Implementation of First Nations English 12 and Socials 12 classes and the need to include a large percentage of First Nations books in general English classes.
-Naming all new schools using First Nations names. Ironic because this horrible education system is always blamed for the failure of First Nations youth.
-The forced implementation of First Nations cultural ceremonies and constant reminder of the "unceded" land that everything is built on. This smudging is supposed to be strictly voluntary (straight from the lips of a First Nations individual) yet at every municipal or provincial gathering the standard speech is given without offering to excuse those that do not wish to be present. I am forced to go through it every time there is a gathering in the school district, many insisting on holding hands, not going to do it. If I were to walk out I can only imagine the repercussions.

It may sound like I am a grumpy old man but it (grumpy) is far from the truth. I have historically been extremely tolerant and sympathetic but I am becoming extremely tired of being made to feel shame about what happened centuries ago. Who is advocating and crying for the Celts, Druids, Gauls, Hittites, Philistines, Carthaginians and any other ethnic group that have been assimilated or "cleansed" over the course of history? Activists are only too happy to say to give everything back to the First Nations but when queried if they own property why they don't sign the deed back over to the local band, they stammer that that won't happen. Let's see how the overwhelming majority would feel if the government mandated all property be transferred to FNs.

Just my take on where this politically correct path is taking people.
I’m on your page Grump Joe.
I mentioned civil war.
Consider how circumstances have rapidly emerged and how the push to expedite more and more powers over the general public has escalated. It’s like that runaway train that crashed into Lac Magentic and the way events are quickly developing there is bound to be a “firery crash”.

[Grumpa Joe]

Grumpa you must of studied this political correctness? To a T.
-- R U a retired ah debater?
Jello -- Joe - Grumpy --

Not looking to debate you Jelly. You said I was wrong blaming Provincial and Federal governments over the resentment that people are feeling and I was just pointing out issues (okay the JA Mac thing was Victoria's major but expressing the sentiment trickling down from higher levels of government), both current and long-standing, that those governments have control over.

No, PC is not a favorite subject area of mine to learn or to teach.

God willing, oh my gosh, I invoked a religious belief, I have got less than 4 years left before retirement, God give me strength. Oh $hit! I did it again.

Always look on the bright side of life....

[silvertipp]

FN obviously have both FN commercial catch quotas, and standard commercial catch quotas. Therefore allowed to sell salmon by right. What, you think every Indian looking person selling fish, is doing so illegally?

You're ok with non- indigenous selling fish, but not FN doing the exact.same.thing? Why is that?
I figured that would be your angle funny thing is there are many years there is no commercial openings
and there is still plenty of fish forsale by First Nations this would make it illegal and an abuse of the system
the reason they do do is simple
nothing happens to them by our courts or there's

[northof49]

You're optimistic my friend, I don't think my grandchildren will see it. First things need to go to shits, before the common sense prevails and things get ironed out back to "proper".

No worries China will straighten it out soon enuf once they finish acquiring Canada.

[Jack Russell]

The People and Governments change "Rights" all the time.

Even those that were written in Stone.

Precisely!

[Jack Russell]

You're going to have a very different perspective on the UN if we end up on the planetary dark side of an authoritarian US, and China looking for new expansion opportunities.

Fearmongering again. Red herring.

[338win mag]

Fearmongering again. Red herring.
Theres probably some truth there jack, I understand security, I dont understand meddling with internal affairs of its member nations.

[Pemby_mess]

Nobody is disputing the fact that they have different rules
the problem lies with the abuse of those laws
ie:the selling of fish is that a right I was unaware of


care to elaborate never heard of such a thing


FN obviously have both FN commercial catch quotas, and standard commercial catch quotas. Therefore allowed to sell salmon by right. What, you think every Indian looking person selling fish, is doing so illegally?

You're ok with non- indigenous selling fish, but not FN doing the exact.same.thing? Why is that?


I figured that would be your angle funny thing is there are many years there is no commercial openings
and there is still plenty of fish forsale by First Nations this would make it illegal and an abuse of the system
the reason they do do is simple
nothing happens to them by our courts or there's

Given the fact you were apparently unaware of an existing right to sell fish, i find it unlikely you know much about how the details of how that right is enforced or not. I will acknowledge that there are instances of illegal activity that go undetected/uncorrected from time to time, but that is probably true with all rules, with all people. I suggest you report the offenders to DFO the next time you identify an offence taking place. Also call the local band office. They all take it quite seriously. It's something they would probably find easier to take seriously if the majority of people understood that an indian selling fish isn't by itself illegal, like some seem to think based on some ill formed stereotype.

None of this is to say there are not legitimate problems. But perennially misunderstanding the problems is counter productive.

[Pemby_mess]

Fearmongering again. Red herring.

I am not fear mongering at all. Just pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for the existence of an organization like the UN. When everything in Canada is hunky-dory for most Canadians, It can be hard for them to understand it's importance. I wasn't saying my inferred scenario was likely, just that there is some possibility the status-quo will change , and with that change in the status quo, perspectives on the UN's utility will also change.

[Pemby_mess]

Theres probably some truth there jack, I understand security, I dont understand meddling with internal affairs of its member nations.

The internal affairs of member nations, often break down into affairs that effect the rest of the world and therefore the security of other member nations. If a country elects an authoritarian aggressor, that is important for the rest of the world to at least contain. As an organization, it's also responsible for preventing genocides - which are decidedly, mostly internal affairs. Often caused by the imbalance of power between a majority and minority people within a nation. The majority of international law focuses on these things, because they are seen as universal to the human race.

[Jelvis]

Check out Venez way la -- the living compared to Canucksville? then we bow down our heads and respect our country!
Jel -- Be proud to be a Canuck at all times! -- Never forget your a Canuck at heart! -- I wood die for Canada! So now I live in Canucksville til then!

[RadHimself]

this is 2018....

being but hurt about the past is not the way to live your life...

the natives are pissed about the way they were treated? TOUGH SHIT, atleast your not jewish....


europe sumhow figured out how to get over that one


1 country, 1 set of rules for EVERYONE

its either that, or were going to be left with nothing....

although at this point, whitey started the slaughter.... now they're ending it



i'm metis... i want my free ticket to harvest too, my ancester got hung out to dry... litterally

[HarryToolips]

Yes.....you were unaware
Unless they have a licence to sell fish commercially, they are only supposed to fish for their and their families own sustenance, I was told this directly by a CO when I reported First Nations members selling salmon on First Nations land several years ago...

[silvertipp]

Given the fact you were apparently unaware of an existing right to sell fish, i find it unlikely you know much about how the details of how that right is enforced or not. I will acknowledge that there are instances of illegal activity that go undetected/uncorrected from time to time, but that is probably true with all rules, with all people. I suggest you report the offenders to DFO the next time you identify an offence taking place. Also call the local band office. They all take it quite seriously. It's something they would probably find easier to take seriously if the majority of people understood that an indian selling fish isn't by itself illegal, like some seem to think based on some ill formed stereotype.

None of this is to say there are not legitimate problems. But perennially misunderstanding the problems is counter productive.
It is quit apparent that the you are the person that does not know what you are talking about
The bands are quit aware of what is going on as it is there lawyers that represent these people
it happens every year
Fish being sold before there is a commercial opening
and years that there is no opening
There has been many tickets handed out and not one of these
cases ever make it to court
they Know it and take complete advantage of it
This is common knowledge
talk to any from the dfo

[Bugle M In]

ya, like the guy just the other week down at the Musqeaum driving range, walking around with a bag loaded with salmon trying to sell to anyone and everyone in there trying to hit balls.
Good thing was, everyone for once turned him down, but sucks to see it happening none the less.

[Pemby_mess]

It is quit apparent that the you are the person that does not know what you are talking about
The bands are quit aware of what is going on as it is there lawyers that represent these people
it happens every year
Fish being sold before there is a commercial opening
and years that there is no opening
There has been many tickets handed out and not one of these
cases ever make it to court
they Know it and take complete advantage of it
This is common knowledge
talk to any from the dfo

No, you are reframing my argument in a way that it was never made. I never claimed that some Indians don't sell fish in contravention of the laws governing that activity, which is the straw man you're responding to above. My response was initially correcting your apparently mistaken understanding of the rights "indians" have to sell fish. You claimed you were unaware of an 'indian's right to sell fish'. I wanted to clarify that some commercial fisherman with a right to sell fish are also status indians, and that some bands have traditional commercial catch quotas, outside of commercial openings, thereby also giving them the legal "right' to sell fish under those circumstances.

So since you, deliberately or not, gave the impression that you were unaware of those two legal commercial conditions, i feel that it was was fair to assume you were also unaware that just because you've seen an indian selling fish, doesn't necessarily mean that they were doing so in contravention of the relevant laws. If you made an error in the communication of your true understanding that is fine, I just thought it was a good opportunity to correct a pervasive myth seemingly held by non-indigenous people wrt indians selling fish.

[Pemby_mess]

ya, like the guy just the other week down at the Musqeaum driving range, walking around with a bag loaded with salmon trying to sell to anyone and everyone in there trying to hit balls.
Good thing was, everyone for once turned him down, but sucks to see it happening none the less.

The Musqeum band is one with a fairly large traditional commercial quota. Did you ask to see the licence the fish were caught under? It seems kind of unfair to perpetuate the assumption the fish you saw being sold were in fact illegal, without proof to back up the allegation. I'm not saying your interpretation is necessarily inaccurate; just that it might be nice to develop the habit of asking questions prior to labelling someone a criminal simply because of their complexion and the neighbourhood they happen to be in. It would also help the DFO enforce the existing regulations more efficiently, instead of having people cry wolf constantly on account of ignorance in the regulations they are reporting violations of.

[silvertipp]

No, you are reframing my argument in a way that it was never made. I never claimed that some Indians don't sell fish in contravention of the laws governing that activity, which is the straw man you're responding to above. My response was initially correcting your apparently mistaken understanding of the rights "indians" have to sell fish. You claimed you were unaware of an 'indian's right to sell fish'. I wanted to clarify that some commercial fisherman with a right to sell fish are also status indians, and that some bands have traditional commercial catch quotas, outside of commercial openings, thereby also giving them the legal "right' to sell fish under those circumstances.

So since you, deliberately or not, gave the impression that you were unaware of those two legal commercial conditions, i feel that it was was fair to assume you were also unaware that just because you've seen an indian selling fish, doesn't necessarily mean that they were doing so in contravention of the relevant laws. If you made an error in the communication of your true understanding that is fine, I just thought it was a good opportunity to correct a pervasive myth seemingly held by non-indigenous people wrt indians selling fish.

This is where I call bullshat
you new exactly what I was talking about
you just like to argue or debate As you would say
I'm done wasting
my time with you

[silvertipp]

. It would also help the DFO enforce the existing regulations more efficiently, instead of having people cry wolf constantly on account of ignorance in the regulations they are reporting violations of.[/QUOTE]
Wrong the dfo cannot do anything to them
the courts simply through it out

[Islander30]

The Musqeum band is one with a fairly large traditional commercial quota. Did you ask to see the licence the fish were caught under? It seems kind of unfair to perpetuate the assumption the fish you saw being sold were in fact illegal, without proof to back up the allegation. I'm not saying your interpretation is necessarily inaccurate; just that it might be nice to develop the habit of asking questions prior to labelling someone a criminal simply because of their complexion and the neighbourhood they happen to be in. It would also help the DFO enforce the existing regulations more efficiently, instead of having people cry wolf constantly on account of ignorance in the regulations they are reporting violations of.

Wow really, so you think it's a possibility the gentlemen selling salmon out of a bag at a driving range may have been doing so legally ??? I find that really disturbing, I work in a food industry and from a Food Safe perspective alone it is not ok to sell people salmon out of a bag on a golf course....It's down right dangerous...I don't care what your "rights" are !!!

[Jelvis]

I want all of you members to look up the word -- ASS SUME ---Hahahahaha Assumption -- easy to do, done all the time!
Jel - I do it, you do it he does it, she does it -- makes an ASS out of U and ME ------Hahahaha -------- :biggrin: ---------------------

[weatherby_man]

LOL Pemby is the troll king of HBC. Always trying to baffle with BS, arguing everything, maintaining the hallmarks of a social warrior.

I think his indian name is Circle-Talker.....

[Pemby_mess]

Wow really, so you think it's a possibility the gentlemen selling salmon out of a bag at a driving range may have been doing so legally ??? I find that really disturbing, I work in a food industry and from a Food Safe perspective alone it is not ok to sell people salmon out of a bag on a golf course....It's down right dangerous...I don't care what your "rights" are !!!

fine, i agree with that. However that is for a debate over foodsafe legislation. An argument i suspect you would win. Unfortunately it doesn't have anything to do with selling fish under a commercial licence or not. So if you called the DFO to report the guy for selling fish out of a bag, I'd imagine they would tell you that you're calling the wrong people and they don't care. It would be better to synthesize the nature of your complaint more coherently.

Ie;

"can i se the licence the fish were caught under? I don't support the illegal monetization of our resources' Yes + no problem on the DFO front. No = call DFO
"Can I see your foodsafe certificate or whatever, I don't support the unhygienic sale of food' Yes - call the foodsafe certificate people to report the offence in contravention of best practices, NO- buyer beware, you're on a reserve not accountable to provincial health inspection.

They're different issues as they relate to the sale of fish. Your grievance has nothing to do with race yet you're awkwardly trying to conflate them. You and I both wouldn't buy a fish from a guy holding up a plastic bag on a hot sunny day. The difference is I am not going to refuse to buy a fish simply because the guy is an Indian on the assumption that his fish are illegal to sell.

[Islander30]

fine, i agree with that. However that is for a debate over foodsafe legislation. An argument i suspect you would win. Unfortunately it doesn't have anything to do with selling fish under a commercial licence or not. So if you called the DFO to report the guy for selling fish out of a bag, I'd imagine they would tell you that you're calling the wrong people and they don't care. It would be better to synthesize the nature of your complaint more coherently.

Ie;

"can i se the licence the fish were caught under? I don't support the illegal monetization of our resources' Yes + no problem on the DFO front. No = call DFO
"Can I see your foodsafe certificate or whatever, I don't support the unhygienic sale of food' Yes - call the foodsafe certificate people to report the offence in contravention of best practices, NO- buyer beware, you're on a reserve not accountable to provincial health inspection.

They're different issues as they relate to the sale of fish. Your grievance has nothing to do with race yet you're awkwardly trying to conflate them. You and I both wouldn't buy a fish from a guy holding up a plastic bag on a hot sunny day. The difference is I am not going to refuse to buy a fish simply because the guy is an Indian on the assumption that his fish are illegal to sell.

If he's selling fish out of a bag on a hot golf course then he's abusing the commercial license and it should be taken away, so DFO should care and the two are related. In fact any authority called about the situation should care, he could kill someone with his stinky bag of fish !

[Jelvis]

Trying to make this out like it's something new, an Indian selling salmon is the part that should be looked at. It's been happening since the 1800's in BC.
-- The guy wandering is either real young or just playing hard to get along with, Playing Stoopid, and Winning Big Time!
- we know who the avatar belongs to,
- likes to play tuff guy on line
--- " People are all tuff behind an avatar "-- quote --by ---> Mike Tyson <---
Jelly Tyz Son --- > all avatars are tuff Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Mike -- Iron Mike!

[IronNoggin]

i figure that the two of you are young enough to witness a civil war.

"Witness"? LOL! ;)


LOL Pemby is the troll king of HBC. Always trying to baffle with BS, arguing everything, maintaining the hallmarks of a social warrior.

I think his indian name is Circle-Talker.....

On other fronts I see our self-professed Ex-Spurt on every and anything once again has taken to pontificate to the extreme. And continues to toss in as much belittlement as he can sneak in while doing so. Obvious mistake removing his IGNORE status, so back to the closet (where he obviously belongs) he goes once again... :roll:

Carry On...

Cheers,
Nog

[silvertipp]

Trying to make this out like it's something new, an Indian selling salmon is the part that should be looked at.
-- The guy wandering is either real young or just playing hard to get along with
- we know who the avatar belongs to,
- likes to play tuff guy
--- people are all tuff behind an avatar -- quote --by ---> Mike Tyson
Jelly Tyz Son --- > all avatars are tuff Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Mike -- Iron Mike!


Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black

[Jelvis]

Tyson's black Hahahahaha not me -- I'm red whad aboud you? silvertop?
Jel

[rocksteady]

The FN have all of the power right now and are using and abusing it...

The disservices happened centuries ago.. why are we still paing for it?

Is Germany still paying for the holocaust? Um.. no!!!

[Bugle M In]

The FN have all of the power right now and are using and abusing it...

The disservices happened centuries ago.. why are we still paing for it?

Is Germany still paying for the holocaust? Um.. no!!!

Better yet, did Germany (Germania) ever get compensated by the Romans????
Get my drift??!!

[weatherby_man]

The FN have all of the power right now and are using and abusing it...

The disservices happened centuries ago.. why are we still paing for it?

Is Germany still paying for the holocaust? Um.. no!!!

We're being EXTORTED for it..... When confronted to pay for something done long ago by "potential ancestors" or even by association who are long dead and mostly forgotten, that my friends is extortion.

[Linksman313]

The FN have all of the power right now and are using and abusing it...

The disservices happened centuries ago.. why are we still paing for it?

Is Germany still paying for the holocaust? Um.. no!!!

That's a great point Rock, in fact it seems if you even utter the word "Holocaust" over there you are investigated for Hate! What did our neighbors in the south do to handle this, oh yeah they began an "Indian War" and just about exterminated every one of them west of the Appalachians, along with quite a few Mexicans who stood in the way as I seem to recall from the Whitey written history books. What kind of problems do the states have with reconciliation? Does the first nations stateside have the population or written law to do anything? Gonna look into it and report back

[silvertipp]

Tyson's black Hahahahaha not me -- I'm red whad aboud you? silvertop?
Jel
Haha the tops not totally silver yet

[limit time]

RyoTHC you can get your Status Card if you can prove blood now, it's changed in the last few year, get a hold of the process -- on computer
-- get the codes and apply, used to be 25 % Indian blood at least or you were " Too white to be right! " Not based on % now. If you got it, you got it!
Jel -- if you have actual blood in your mom or dad's blood then you are now allowed to apply so I know two guys that changed it, and got their number --
Jel send me the link ! I’m in !!

[338win mag]

ya, like the guy just the other week down at the Musqeaum driving range, walking around with a bag loaded with salmon trying to sell to anyone and everyone in there trying to hit balls.
Good thing was, everyone for once turned him down, but sucks to see it happening none the less.
Anyone buying fish from this guy would most likely be contributing to the drug epidemic....if people quite buying fish it would go a long way to discouraging rogue fish sellers.

[Jelvis]

Southern and coastal Indians are into the sockeye, In the Fraser Valley bands.
Up here in Kamloops we got mule deer to hunt, no slimy fish fewwww ----------
Jel -- No sock in the eyes for me -- too fishy --

[Onesock]

If they are a nation they should finance themselves. Give them all the land but quit giving them money! White eyes will have it all back in 5 years!
Stop financing the other nation.

[Jelvis]

Whites are becoming a minority now, And it's something that has never happened before to lots of the white skinned folk.
--- Kamloops has mostly E Indians from decades of generations, from the 60's and up to 2018.
-- Indians from all around the area
-- Asians
-- Chinese, Japanese - dirty knees - Italians, greeks, sicilians, arabs
- blacks coming in to TRU -- viet kong - mexicans -- phillipinos -- on and on folks and in Kamloops we love them all -- we love each other like friends --
Jel -- it is happening now -- whites becoming a minority in many places -- in BC -- in Kamloops the older people are the whites mostly, 70 and up > wrinkled up.
----------------The Who -- No one knows what it's like to be the sad man, to be the bad man behind blue eyes -- no one knows - tellin only lies -------------------

[limit time]

Whites are becoming a minority now, And it's something that has never happened before to lots of the white skinned folk.
--- Kamloops has mostly E Indians from decades of generations, from the 60's and up to 2018.
-- Indians from all around the area
-- Asians
-- Chinese, Japanese - dirty knees
- blacks coming in to TRU -- viet kong - mexicans -- phillipinos -- on and on folks and in Kamloops we love them all -- we love each other like friends --
Jel -- it is happening now -- whites becoming a minority in many places -- in BC -- in Kamloops the older people are the whites mostly, 70 and up > wrinkled up.
----------------The Who -- No one knows what it's like to be the sad man, to be the bad man behind blue eyes -- no one knows - tellin only lies -------------------
Just not “whites” eh jel ?

[Jelvis]

=-ll----> Indians need love like any other people, someone who can spend some company with, socializing and being friendly. Chatting each udder up! No different then any one else living in gorgeous BC does. You don't like us people in BC who have the blessing of calling BC home? You gotta misunderstanding then.
Jelly Jo Will Cott -- we all need love and attention once in a while -- A lil smoke, a couple beer -- some dancing and some good food -- hold hands and hug each udder
Look each udder over and get to know each other, create a relationship - start from start and try not tah fart Hahahahaha

[coyotebc]

This is an issue all over Canada and the amount of misinformation is crazy. Yelling screaming and whining about it will not help nor will it change the LAWS. Here are a few points/facts that we need to understand.

1. First Nations are a Nation. That means they are not the same as the Canadian public. Canada is a nation and First Nation is a nation. They will always have different rules. Just like USA has different rules then us. This will always be TRUE. This will never change. We will never be one nation with all the same rules. Yelling that it is not fair will not change this. This means different laws and different rights for each group.

2. First Nations have the right to hunt/fish/use resources. Canadians do not have this right. It is not my right to use the resources. No court will uphold my right to hunt/fish because I don't have one. That means the government can change the law and thus change my privilege to hunt/fish. The government CANNOT take away the First Nation's right to hunt/fish/etc. (There is only one way they can, I'll explain later)

3. First Nations have first right to resources. If a resource is dwindling then Canadian privileges are first taken away before First Nation's are effected. This is law. The only way to take away the rights of the First Nation is if the species is at such a risk that there is no way to support any kind of harvest.

These things will not change. Government cannot change them. The courts will always hold up the rights that the First Nations have. Therefore the government will not waste there time creating laws that will just get thrown out in court.

It is within this framework that we must work. The above things will not change. So how do we move forward? What is the best approach for the wildlife? I think understanding the difficult (but real) situation we have here is important. Not everyone has the same rights. It is a reality that a different set of laws will apply to each group. First Nations will always have better access to hunting and fishing. We will lose opportunities and they will not. I hate that there is two groups but it is the reality of how this country was formed.

1. The term first nation is not accurate, with the possible exception of a few of the the Iroquois groups, the only true chiefdoms north of Mexico were the Northwest Coast groups. They never had a national identity, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

2. The Charter only states that treaties will be recognized as will native rights, however what those rights are is not defined in the Charter, so the courts have decided what they are. The Charter can and should be amended to define this.

3. Show what section of the Charter gives first right of resources? Again much of what had been defined has been defined by an activist SOC. It is within the power of government to address this issue.

A Liberal government forced the Charter of Rights down the throats of Canadians less than 40 years ago, another one could do the same.

As for wildlife management, please show a treaty or section of the Charter that places native rights above the health of a species.
The government can enforce action against some of the commercial non-treaty use of wildlife but choose not to.

There are many things that can be done within the current laws and charter, if the government had the will to do it

[Jelvis]

The term or name Indian was given by lost adventurers looking for India, I'm glad they weren't lookin for Turkey. Eh!
-- Now it's termed Native or First Nations, trying to elude the term Indian for some mysterious reason? The stigma, I know people who refuse their Status Card because they don't want to be classed as an Indian, people I know personally -- don't want it -- It can cause problems too, lots of people as you see on here even.
Jel -- I know the term Indian can cause a second look for me, half n half -- quarter breed -- get a tan fast, soon as the sun gets warm and a shadow.
----------------------------------------My mom is the original from BC ------ all in one -- Secwepemc' -- Shuswap ! Region 3 -- from a strong hunting family specialized in mule deer hunting and conservation , cleared bush on the winter ranges -- thinned fir -- spaced the forest floors -- of rubble for less travel trouble --

[Jimbob]

1. The term first nation is not accurate, with the possible exception of a few of the the Iroquois groups, the only true chiefdoms north of Mexico were the Northwest Coast groups. They never had a national identity, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

2. The Charter only states that treaties will be recognized as will native rights, however what those rights are is not defined in the Charter, so the courts have decided what they are. The Charter can and should be amended to define this.

3. Show what section of the Charter gives first right of resources? Again much of what had been defined has been defined by an activist SOC. It is within the power of government to address this issue.

A Liberal government forced the Charter of Rights down the throats of Canadians less than 40 years ago, another one could do the same.

As for wildlife management, please show a treaty or section of the Charter that places native rights above the health of a species.
The government can enforce action against some of the commercial non-treaty use of wildlife but choose not to.

There are many things that can be done within the current laws and charter, if the government had the will to do it

It's all about the courts. When a decision is made in court it sets a precedent. The Canadian courts have decided that FN get first rights to hunting and fishing. Read the following article.

THE COURT GAVE ORDERS TO THE GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE THE LAWS. THIS IS A COURT DECISION, NO GOVERNMENT WILL BE ABLER TO CHANGE IT.

https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/b-c-first-nations-get-clarity-on-fishing-rights-from-top-court/

I am not sharing my opinion here, I believe these are the facts.

[Jimbob]

1. The term first nation is not accurate, with the possible exception of a few of the the Iroquois groups, the only true chiefdoms north of Mexico were the Northwest Coast groups. They never had a national identity, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

2. The Charter only states that treaties will be recognized as will native rights, however what those rights are is not defined in the Charter, so the courts have decided what they are. The Charter can and should be amended to define this.

3. Show what section of the Charter gives first right of resources? Again much of what had been defined has been defined by an activist SOC. It is within the power of government to address this issue.

A Liberal government forced the Charter of Rights down the throats of Canadians less than 40 years ago, another one could do the same.

As for wildlife management, please show a treaty or section of the Charter that places native rights above the health of a species.
The government can enforce action against some of the commercial non-treaty use of wildlife but choose not to.

There are many things that can be done within the current laws and charter, if the government had the will to do it

i never said FN rights come above the health of a species, I actually stated the opposite. The government does have the ability to restrict FN harvest but only when the health of a species is at risk (who knows how at risk it would have to be, probably endangered)

Anyways, do you think a government can change the Charter to limit or take away the rights that FN have been experiencing right now? Then do you think the courts would follow the Charter. I just cannot see this happening. I feel that even if the Charter was changed that those changes would be fought in court and not be allowed.

[Weatherby Fan]

If you do some research into what the courts and the government have agreed to and given to the "First Nations" you will realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg were seeing, all I know is the future generations in Canada have no future here.........it's mind boggling what is going on and whats going to take place.

[Weatherby Fan]

i never said FN rights come above the health of a species, I actually stated the opposite. The government does have the ability to restrict FN harvest but only when the health of a species is at risk (who knows how at risk it would have to be, probably endangered)

Anyways, do you think a government can change the Charter to limit or take away the rights that FN have been experiencing right now? Then do you think the courts would follow the Charter. I just cannot see this happening. I feel that even if the Charter was changed that those changes would be fought in court and not be allowed.

you need to do some research on the topic, thats just it our Government does not actually have any jurisdiction over the First Nations as they are a Nation of their own within a Nation, they don't have to abide by anything we are governed by, they have the right to govern themselves accordingly, you need to read up on it.

[browningboy]

The native threads are all the same, we all squawk, they get what they want and we say equal rights for all... so until a politician steps up and tries to do one final gesture of closure then the natives will keep coming back on the tit, it’s just human nature...
just have to get rid of the stupid apologies and move on, that’s why it’s history... I can’t whine about what happened to my ancestors in Europe? But until then the tit is full and they keep sucking it.

[dino]

I never usually chime in on these subjects but i am interested. I haven't read any other pages. I have probably a stupid question. Why are there differences in the two nations? I dont understand why there are separate rules.

[Weatherby Fan]

I never usually chime in on these subjects but i am interested. I haven't read any other pages. I have probably a stupid question. Why are there differences in the two nations? I dont understand why there are separate rules.

Because the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes their rights unto themselves not any part of a Canadian Nation so to speak, First Nations, so they can self govern as they see fit.

Just Google First Nations and you'll have more links and reading of what it all means than you'll have time for !

[Jimbob]

I never usually chime in on these subjects but i am interested. I haven't read any other pages. I have probably a stupid question. Why are there differences in the two nations? I dont understand why there are separate rules.

It all has to do with how the Nation was founded. If Europenas came and conquered the FN then there would not be two separate rules. However, it did not happen that way at all.

The Royal Proclamation in 1763 that was issued by King George was basically a set of guidelines for settlement in Canada. In that proclamation it actually stated that Aboriginal had exsisting title over the land and they only way to take it from them was to negotiate. Some places that was negotiated (Look up the Douglas Treaties for BC, those treaties grant FN hunting and fishing rights in perpetuity) and other places it was just ignored and land was taken.

So now those Treaties that were signed and had no expiration date are still being upheld. Other FN's are saying "Hey we never negotiated a treaty, you Canadian are here illegally lets negotiate now" and new treaties are being signed granting rights.

Also, I believe the supreme court will say that all status Indians (regardless if they belong to a Nation that signed a treaty) have inherit FN rights.

So it has nothing to do with "feeling sorry for what we did" and everything to do with how the country was originally settled. This why its like TWO (Yes I am lumping all FN's together even though there are many) nations living in one geographical space.

[Jimbob]

America has some of the same issues but not nearly like Canada has. That's because America had their own revolution and were not part of England. They settled their country how they wanted. They killed most of the Aboriginals as they settled the west. In a sense America conquered the aboriginals and took their land. In Canada we made deals with the Natives to share the land, giving them special rights.

[Weatherby Fan]

Here's some more light reading about the term unceded lands they keep throwing around,

One of the terms you will want to consider not using is “crown land” or “crown lands”. If you use this term in your work with Aboriginal Peoples, you are opening the door to difficult conversations – that is if the door is still open to conversations once this term has slipped your lips.In my Intercultural presentation (https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/intercultural-presentation)to the Vancouver Board of Trade, at about the 21st minute, I delve into the topic of crown land versus Aboriginal title lands, or alternatively, unceded traditional territory.
Crown land is a term that everyone is familiar with but how many of us really know what it actually means? In large sections of British Columbia, crown land is unceded land meaning that Aboriginal Title has neither been surrendered nor acquired by the Crown. The Crown doesn’t own the land outright as the term suggests. In fact, in Delgamuuknw and Gisday'way (https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/delgamuukw-gisdaway-reason-consult), the Supreme Court of Canada actually stated that Aboriginal title represents an encumbrance on the Crown’s ultimate title.

More recently, in the Tsilhqot’in case the Supreme Court of Canada actually determined that the Tsilhqot’in have Aboriginal title to large tracts of land.


The Rise of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessments (https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/rise-of-indigenous-traditional-knowledge-in-environmental-assessments)

Further, under the Royal Proclamation (https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/royal-proclamation-of-1763) of 1763, the King of England declared that all unceded, unsold land would be reserved to them. The Proclamation stated that land could not be purchased from the First Nations without first being negotiated in public through the Crown. Its principles are alive and well in Canada, and are the basis of modern day treaty negotiations and Aboriginal rights and title cases

British Columbia is unique in Canada in that most of the province (an area that’s about *95 per cent of the land base, or nearly 900,000 square kilometres) is unceded, non-surrendered First Nation territories.

In June of 2014, the City of Vancouver took the bold move of officially acknowledging that the city sits on unceded First Nations territories. The acknowledgement came at the close of Vancouver’s “Year of Reconciliation”, declared by Mayor Gregor Robertson in the summer of 2013, as part of the city’s effort to build new relationships between Aboriginal peoples and Vancouverites.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Vancouver formally acknowledge
that the city of Vancouver is on the unceded traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations;

FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to invite representatives from the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations to work with the Mayor to develop appropriate protocols for the City of Vancouver to use in conducting City business that respect the traditions of welcome, blessing, and acknowledgement of the territory.


The City of Vancouver deserves kudos for showing leadership in creating the opportunity to take this positive bold step forward. I would encourage other local governments to do the same.

Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples® tip:
When working with First Nation communities, be careful to keep the term “crown land” or “crown lands” out of your discussions and reports. Alternatively, you can use traditional territory (https://www.ictinc.ca/first-nation-protocol-on-traditional-territory) or “unceded territory” to show respect and an understanding; a practice that First Nations routinely do amongst themselves.


" *94 per cent of the land in British Columbia is provincial Crown Land, 2% of which is covered by fresh water. Federal Crown Land make up a further 1% of the province, including Indian reserves, defence lands and federal harbours, while 5% is privately owned." Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land#Canada)
Download our free ebook for more tips on effective consultation with Indigenous Peoples.


Here's the link

why-you-should-avoid-using-crown-lands-in-first-nation-consultation (https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/why-you-should-avoid-using-crown-lands-in-first-nation-consultation)

[Jelvis]

Under Canadian Constitution and thee Indian Act to look up stuff on Indians, Status ones --

All of BC is Provincial Crown Land and others like Indian Reserves owned by the Fed Gov't now ,, the Reserve land it's on, plus in BC 5% land is owned by you the private.
1% is Feds owning reserve lands. 94 % Provincial Crown so = 95%
Jel -- Feds plus Crown ( unceded ) own 95 % of BC now! -- the other 5% are you who own private property now! -- so BC is a wild country with lots of space yet

[Linksman313]

Stupid question #1 - if 94% of BC is unceded/non-surrendered First Nations territory, could one revoke/cancel their Canadian citizenship (no taxes or benefits) , move on to these aforementioned lands and strike an agreement with whichever First Nation claims it? (Pay them taxes or land rent so to speak) Yes this is ridiculous but some of the off-grid/hippie types may find this appealing.

Stupid question #2 - (continuing on Jimbob's train of thought here about two nations in one geographical space) Couldn't one or any of the First Nations claiming this unceded/non surrendered land declare themselves a sovereign nation separate from Canada? Yes I understand there
would be a forfeiture of funding and benefits BUT - this would ultimately achieve what seems to be the basis for all the reconciliation
re - cultural preservation?

[Jelvis]

bands have been asked by the government types to vote on staying the way it is, or trying to go on their own, and some I know personally have done just that.
- cut off from using card at reserves for discount cigs and taxes off other rez because they decided to leave -- northern ones are choosing to leave the way it is and control the area themselves with any outsiders wanting oil or what knot.
Jel -- It's a time of organized confusion in the world right now Hahahahahaha -- nuttier than a fruit cake - in between everything it seems like -- a definite Maybe!
------------- Polly Tish inns can really stay between Yes and No a MAYBE SO! That's it!

[BgBlkDg]

CROWN LAND and to HELL with "reconciliation"!!!!!!

[Jimbob]

Stupid question #1 - if 94% of BC is unceded/non-surrendered First Nations territory, could one revoke/cancel their Canadian citizenship (no taxes or benefits) , move on to these aforementioned lands and strike an agreement with whichever First Nation claims it? (Pay them taxes or land rent so to speak) Yes this is ridiculous but some of the off-grid/hippie types may find this appealing.

Stupid question #2 - (continuing on Jimbob's train of thought here about two nations in one geographical space) Couldn't one or any of the First Nations claiming this unceded/non surrendered land declare themselves a sovereign nation separate from Canada? Yes I understand there
would be a forfeiture of funding and benefits BUT - this would ultimately achieve what seems to be the basis for all the reconciliation
re - cultural preservation?

There is definitely a grey area in all of this, it is not cut and dry most of the time. That's why courts are doing much of the clarification/deciding.

Answer to stupid question 1- unceded territory is still Canadian soil. Also, that land is under provincial jurisdiction. Now going on the a reserve is a bit of a different story. Remember territory area and reserve are different things. Almost like a city and a province but not really ha ha. If you wanted to go on reserve land you would be out of provincial jurisidction but still fall under federal jurisdiction. Only federal laws apply on reserves not provincial.

Answer to stupid question 2 - Many do claim themselves as a sovereign nation. A nation to nation agreement is what they believe they have with the Canadian Government. This is why they want self governance. They want the benefits of the agreement (treaty) and they don't want the Government telling them what to do. They say this is the intent of the original agreements, kinda hard to argue with them as well. FN had claim to the land. Agreements were made to get the land. Those agreements say the FN get a whole bunch of benefits (money, education, health care, use of land still etc.) and we get the land. So Canada has the land and the FN's have the benefits. FN's say they are a sovereign nation and Canada does not get to make laws and rules telling them how to use those benefits.

[Linksman313]

Thanks for taking the time to explain and answer my questions Jimbob, I would agree there is much grey area to be muddled through.

[Pemby_mess]

Stupid question #1 - if 94% of BC is unceded/non-surrendered First Nations territory, could one revoke/cancel their Canadian citizenship (no taxes or benefits) , move on to these aforementioned lands and strike an agreement with whichever First Nation claims it? (Pay them taxes or land rent so to speak) Yes this is ridiculous but some of the off-grid/hippie types may find this appealing.

Stupid question #2 - (continuing on Jimbob's train of thought here about two nations in one geographical space) Couldn't one or any of the First Nations claiming this unceded/non surrendered land declare themselves a sovereign nation separate from Canada? Yes I understand there
would be a forfeiture of funding and benefits BUT - this would ultimately achieve what seems to be the basis for all the reconciliation
re - cultural preservation?


There is definitely a grey area in all of this, it is not cut and dry most of the time. That's why courts are doing much of the clarification/deciding.

Answer to stupid question 1- unceded territory is still Canadian soil. Also, that land is under provincial jurisdiction. Now going on the a reserve is a bit of a different story. Remember territory area and reserve are different things. Almost like a city and a province but not really ha ha. If you wanted to go on reserve land you would be out of provincial jurisidction but still fall under federal jurisdiction. Only federal laws apply on reserves not provincial.

Answer to stupid question 2 - Many do claim themselves as a sovereign nation. A nation to nation agreement is what they believe they have with the Canadian Government. This is why they want self governance. They want the benefits of the agreement (treaty) and they don't want the Government telling them what to do. They say this is the intent of the original agreements, kinda hard to argue with them as well. FN had claim to the land. Agreements were made to get the land. Those agreements say the FN get a whole bunch of benefits (money, education, health care, use of land still etc.) and we get the land. So Canada has the land and the FN's have the benefits. FN's say they are a sovereign nation and Canada does not get to make laws and rules telling them how to use those benefits.


Thanks for taking the time to explain and answer my questions Jimbob, I would agree there is much grey area to be muddled through.

It's not that grey. Your understanding would be well served by reading the "Royal Proclamation of 1763" already mentioned, and "two row wampum":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty

The first being the British legal guidelines for treaty negotiation, and the second being the FN understanding of what was being negotiated.

Another important understanding is the separate, unrelated nature of the legislative "indian act", and the common law legal principles behind the modern land claim process. The "indian act" was about restricting the FN collective rights, in favour of isolating them as individuals to be later bred out of existence, and "enfranchised" into the majority Canadian citizenry as a consequence. The modern land claim process, obviously comes at the problem from a much more sophisticated angle and is about FN collective property rights. The Indian Act didn't recognize indigenous nations as legal entities to unto themselves, but instead understood FN individuals to be vulnerable cultural relics in need of direct parental stewardship from then state. The initial treaty process however did recognize indigenous nations as legal entities, and more or less followed the "two row wampum" cooperative framework. It's Canada that has deviated from those contracts, not the FN. They still seem to be negotiating under their original principles.

[Jelvis]

1668 thee Hudson Bay Co. opened in Hudsons Bay -- British -- English combine set up Fort Charles - Henry Hudson -- 18 owners Ruperts Land after Prince Rupert
cousin of the royal family and the companies chief backer the owners said they owned all land and everything draining into the new Hudson' Bay 1.5 million sq Miles :shock:
Jel -- Time-Life books -- The Canadians - Thee OLD West --

[Jimbob]

It's not that grey. Your understanding would be well served by reading the "Royal Proclamation of 1763" already mentioned, and "two row wampum":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty

The first being the British legal guidelines for treaty negotiation, and the second being the FN understanding of what was being negotiated.

Another important understanding is the separate, unrelated nature of the legislative "indian act", and the common law legal principles behind the modern land claim process. The "indian act" was about restricting the FN collective rights, in favour of isolating them as individuals to be later bred out of existence, and "enfranchised" into the majority Canadian citizenry as a consequence. The modern land claim process, obviously comes at the problem from a much more sophisticated angle and is about FN collective property rights. The Indian Act didn't recognize indigenous nations as legal entities to unto themselves, but instead understood FN individuals to be vulnerable cultural relics in need of direct parental stewardship from then state. The initial treaty process however did recognize indigenous nations as legal entities, and more or less followed the "two row wampum" cooperative framework. It's Canada that has deviated from those contracts, not the FN. They still seem to be negotiating under their original principles.

You have to be crazy to say there is no grey area in all of this. Why are there so many court cases? Why is there so much misinformation? Because it is hard to tell what is actually going on.

Ex. Can FN hunt at night? No simple answer. It is a GREY area. you have to factor in public safety (what does that mean? there is no clear definition of what it means) Next, the FN has to prove that they traditionally hunted at night. LOL how do you prove that? Hard evidence needed? or stories from Elders good enough? It get s left up to the court to decide because it such a grey area.

So in my opinion all of the FN issues are major grey areas because it is not cut and dry, nothing about it is simple.

[Jelvis]

Willy Alphonse Jr case I told you people a million times put it on here if you have the computer skills it clears this junk completely up the whole thing butt no one wants the truth. It's hard to take but look at the final verdict all judges went Willy's way.
Jel -- Hunt at night, hunt on any private property just don't shoot within the legal distance from buildings - I'm not making this up.
-------I'm not telling you this to pee you off --It will clear up much of this confusion -- it's an up to date case in the last decade or so --

[jassmine]

Is Germany still paying for the holocaust? Um.. no!!!

They actually have been and continue to:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-to-pay-772-million-euros-in-reparations-to-holocaust-survivors-a-902528.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/germany-to-compensate-25-thousand-holocaust-survivors-from-algeria-1.5788879

http://time.com/4854006/holocaust-survivor-negotiation-claims-conference-germany/

[Pemby_mess]

You have to be crazy to say there is no grey area in all of this. Why are there so many court cases? Why is there so much misinformation? Because it is hard to tell what is actually going on.

Ex. Can FN hunt at night? No simple answer. It is a GREY area. you have to factor in public safety (what does that mean? there is no clear definition of what it means) Next, the FN has to prove that they traditionally hunted at night. LOL how do you prove that? Hard evidence needed? or stories from Elders good enough? It get s left up to the court to decide because it such a grey area.

So in my opinion all of the FN issues are major grey areas because it is not cut and dry, nothing about it is simple.

Some grey, sure. But within the subject matter put forward by yourself and linksman - less so. Which is why I believe the BC government should hop to it and get all these claims put to bed through multi-lateral negotiations ASAP, and not wait for the courts to hand down what are increasingly predictable judgements.

Every complex subject has some grey areas that change according to one's perspective. Legal issues are no different. But talk to a legal practitioner who's done some research and debate in this area, and their definition for grey will likely be a lot different than yours and mine. We lacking the educational hat rack to hang the new information off of.

[Jimbob]

Some grey, sure. But within the subject matter put forward by yourself and linksman - less so. Which is why I believe the BC government should hop to it and get all these claims put to bed through multi-lateral negotiations ASAP, and not wait for the courts to hand down what are increasingly predictable judgements.

Every complex subject has some grey areas that change according to one's perspective. Legal issues are no different. But talk to a legal practitioner who's done some research and debate in this area, and their definition for grey will likely be a lot different than yours and mine. We lacking the educational hat rack to hang the new information off of.

agreed.

Negotiations will take years though. Nothing like this is done quickly.

[wideopenthrottle]

agreed.

Negotiations will take years though. Nothing like this is done quickly.

Especially when you realize the ones who are in a position to get things settled (especially Lawyers) for both sides keep getting paid by the government (us) for as long as it takes to settle.....The other power brokers (chiefs and politicians) also benefit from the interim situation

One of the biggest fears I have is rewriting the indian act to make it politically correct.....there have been literally 100's of millions spent interpreting every word and ambiguity of the act as is.....redoing it would give fresh food for lawyers for many more generations to come

[Pemby_mess]

agreed.

Negotiations will take years though. Nothing like this is done quickly.

"even the greatest journey starts with but a single step"

A lot talk here centers on the cost. The costs are what they are because things weren't negotiated properly in the first place.

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second best time is now"

Things are always more expensive when you try to pay for it with the minimum payment. Better to get the cost out of the way up front, and dedicate energy to making the future more prosperous for everyone. The crown has the land to barter with - they can still negotiate terms favourable to their interest in it. Leaving it to the courts is suicide, because they won't necessarily account for those interests when it's on them to balance the scales.

I'd rather see some predictability in an ongoing process, rather than sit there waiting for the axe to drop.

[Jelvis]

Some people are adventurers and some are stay at homers --- some do a little of both -- some can - some can't -- some do - some don't! Hey!

=-//---> " Cartier began trading with local Indians around 1535 when Jock Cartier came up looking for the North-west passage, went to what now is Montreal and started trading for fabulous fur ". " French knives and kettles were what mezmorized the Injuns, gave Jock the skins right off their muscled backs." <-------ll-=
--> Back in Europe after they found the skins unreal, for making felt hats, and the business went wild! By the 17th Century the fur trade had moved to zee Vest my friends.
Jelly - Samuel De Champlane folks? French again. Ottawa and French Rivers 1603 and made the voyageur. Frenchy in Indian Canoe by himself -- lil scarey hahaha

[downsouth204]

Just a thought, but what if we all just sat down together and worked it out. Took a good hard look at the reality of the situation, decided on our common goals and worked towards them. It's going to happen this way in the end. The question is how bad will we let things get before we grow up!

[Jelvis]

Trubb bel iz? --- We can all sit down, butt it only takes one clown to bring em down -- it makes us frown -- can't watch and Bee with everyone so

1. need supervision
2. need money for gas
3. who knows who in the bush?
4. If you can stand up and be counted is one thang
5. Butt if your shy or angry, hang back a bit

Jel -- I stand up for myself and family and friends and law the best I can, I don't depend on someone to help me first to protect myself.
------------If you need someone to help you stand up, then don't aggravate udders -- you start things you can't finish and that is where you diminish.

[limit time]

I want all of you members to look up the word -- ASS SUME ---Hahahahaha Assumption -- easy to do, done all the time!
Jel - I do it, you do it he does it, she does it -- makes an ASS out of U and ME ------Hahahaha -------- :biggrin: ---------------------
ASS-SUME ? Is that something you eat jel?

[wideopenthrottle]

I saw a commercial for a new "reality TV" show...It is going to be on the APTN it is called "First Contact" IIRC.....I wonder if it will be a chance for some natives to show their achievements in conservation and culture (environment based connections to the land) or will it be a barrage of "make the rest of society feel bad" for the current state of native society..

[Jelvis]

Lots of the Indians I see every day are no different than most of the others I see in Kammy. Go to Tru, teach, run offices, you name it.
-- just recognize them cuz I see the same people around my community and have a time table when I see events during the day.
Recognize by memory -- no different
Jel -- Hey if me or Rocko the Jocko my bro ever meet on the street -- give Rock a lil space, stay back a bit -- don't reach out, ah nooooorahhhh