11 ms·

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society. However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have o

• stonogo 3y ago
  > On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others. Kind of the point here is that it was happening the other way for a couple hundred years, so just abrogating current inequality still leaves one party as a disadvantage. The hard part is deciding when these catch-up priveleges have run their course. Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet.
  • nickff 3y ago
    Complicating this calculation is the way that the 'catch-up rights' are provided via tribal mechanisms, which incentivizes 'chiefs' and 'council members'/'elders' to prolong the inequality so that they can maintain their power & control.
  • e_i_pi_2 3y ago
    This reminds me of the Malcolm X quote > If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.
  • smallmancontrov 3y ago
    So why not run programs along the lines of current economic status, which is relatively easy to objectively determine and relatively light on ethnic, racial, and national animus? It is impossible to do a good job of litigating history and it is guaranteed to make people hate each other.
    • elefanten 3y ago
      This is absolutely the correct answer, all identity-based solutions are coarse and imprecise ways to solve a directly measurable problem (relative economic hardship). But the identity-based lever has proven too effective rhetorically and creates ample rent-seeking and self-enrichment opportunities to those wielding political power with an identity-based community. Plus, general means-based intervention is generally scary to the “wealthy” identity (cutting across all other identity divisions).
      • sdenton4 3y ago
        I'm not sure how you get from 'the Canadian government must respect the treaties that it signed' to 'identity-based solutions.'
  • Tiktaalik 3y ago
    There is no real special catch up going on here. What is happening now is that First Nations have leveraged the courts to force a rule of law country like Canada to actually follow through on obeying the rule of law and following through with treaties they had signed and agreements they had made.
    • nikitaga 3y ago
      What treaties? BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. That's why those lawsuits are even considered. We can thank a bunch of long-dead British guys for that. And let's not pretend that this has anything to do with the constitution or the rule of law. The actual "rules" in the source material are woefully under-specified and open to all kinds of interpretation, so the number one factor actually affecting these decisions is the social popculture that everyone in the country, including the justices, is subject to. We simply have a bunch of unelected people effectively writing an important part of Canadian law for decades, because the elected people whose actual job it is to write such laws don't want to do it.
      • Tiktaalik 3y ago
        The situation in BC yeah largely without treaties gives the First Nations even more leverage to control their lands under claim because otherwise Canada has to somehow justify being a rule of law country and also stealing people's land in the year 2024. Obviously it's not going to work, which is why the courts continue to rule in the favour of BC FNs.
  • nikitaga 3y ago
    > Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet. Instead of rushing for race-based policies, how about implementing policies that would help all disadvantaged people equally without looking at their race. You can't compensate for past racism with modern racism. It will never end. Canada will learn that the hard way, it seems.
    • philistine 3y ago
      I see you took Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s plan from way back in the 70s out of the moth balls and are now trying to pass it as new. It cannot work. Our government signed binding treaties with independent nations in the past. Those treaties are still valid, and we cannot declare them null and void because it’s unfair that they give more fishing rights to 3% of people.
      • nikitaga 3y ago
        This isn't about treaties – BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes. For example, does the constitution guarantee the indigenous people the right to subsistence fishing with traditional methods, or to large scale commercial fishing unlimited by any Canadian regulations, or something in between? None of that is defined in the constitution, it's all up for interpretation. And this isn't about fishing either. No one's chanting #fishback around here, it's all #landback. 90%+ of BC land is currently public land that all Canadians are free to enjoy. Whether it stays public, or whether it is entirely privatized based on race, like the activists want, is a much bigger issue than who gets to overfish.
        • bawolff 3y ago
          > The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes. That is the supreme court's job. They decide how to interpret things. Their interpretation is law. Interpreting the constitution in the context of current social views of course is not a canadian invention but comes to us from the british https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine
  • BigParm 3y ago
    When the catch up is in the form of hiring quotas for a mining project on native lands, that’s just a consensual business deal and it’s positive. But sometimes the situation is taken advantage of and the appeasement goes too far. Like instead of cutting firewood for the wood stove, you just throw all your furniture and cabinetry and doors in there. Then you just ask for new ones from a big company who just wants to quietly put this problem away without stirring up a fuss and risking their project or bigger costs later. That actually happened lol. It’s not a race issue or a cultural issue. Natives are competent people. We may have different ancestral traditions, but we share exactly the same culture today. Where do you think the Canadian accent comes from? That’s a native accent. Our cultures mixed together. If a business and a land owning band want to cut a deal, by all means. If the government and the bands want to settle land compensation, then settle it once and for all. It really just never ends as it stands. Like what does free post secondary have to do with land claims? It really looks like systemic racism. And if the government was serious about any of this they’d give them autonomy in their lands. Statehood. That hasn’t happened. Why not? I get that you can’t sign over Vancouver because it’s been developed, but a lot of these places are in the bush. It’s really a shit show. We’re not the rich country we once were. We can’t afford to pay billions forever on repeat just to make it go away for a little while. Settle it all immediately and make all races equal.
    • philistine 3y ago
      To do that you need to break international law by declaring the treaties signed in the past null and void. You also need to break international law by refusing to negotiate with nations who never signed treaties, and want deals at least as good as nations who signed treaties. There’s a very good reason why what you’re proposing is not what’s happening: it’s because you’re dealing with nation to nation negotiations, and the other nations want nothing of fairness and equality. They want their full rights, and denying them that is turning back the clock decades.
      • travisb 3y ago
        How would it be breaking international law? Who would enforce it? Would the US stop trading with Canada because Canada nullified some treaties with a third party (ie. not the USA)? Would Germany invade Canada? Treaties are just agreements and are broken all the time; for an obvious example look at trade treaties or weapons treaties. In the Canadian context the constitution states that Canada must maintain those existing treaties with Aboriginal tribes, but constitutions are changeable. Every other treaty is a mere act of Government away from nullification.
• nvy 3y ago
  >But on more practical grounds, this is creating a great big loophole for the traditional resource extraction companies to circumvent environment regulation by partnering with first nations on projects. There's a certain demographic that can't accept that indigenous people might not be nature-worshipping druids that never pollute and are infallible stewards of the land, so through that lens of course they don't need to be subject to environmental regulations.
  • elevaet 3y ago
    That may be true, but fundamentally this is about autonomy. These Nations do not necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the National or Provincial government since they never ceeded their territory. It's a bit of a grey area for sure, but this isn't about "giving the people of the forest" stewardship of the land in order for them to protect it, it's recognizing that they didn't sign up to be governed under the nation/province.
    • extr 3y ago
      The idea that they do not fall under jusrisdiction is a farce and legal contrivance. In reality they have no international standing and do not and would not constitute an independent state under any normal criteria. What's happening here is the government is treating them with kid gloves because there is the perception what happened in the past is unfair (true!) and there is a desire to make amends for it. That's all well and good, let's just acknowledge it and call it what it is. If tomorrow they decided to start developing nuclear weapons I don't think "they didn't consent to be governed" would fly.
      • TSiege 3y ago
        It doesn't matter if they don't have international standing, what matters is that Canada has recognized them as sovereign entities. You can't be sovereign but then be boxed into the laws of another country
        • ricardobeat 3y ago
• Tiktaalik 3y ago
  > they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands. Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizens" of Canada but rather part of Nations that have their own governance and jurisdiction. Nations that have signed government to government treaties with Canada that clearly define their rights and jurisdiction. And in many cases in BC in particular, treaties were never signed, and First Nations never ceded their lands and title, so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. These First Nations continue to rack up wins in the courts that continue to side with the FNs that their title to their lands has never been extinguished.
  • trhway 3y ago
    The story shows one of the facets of the value of sovereignty what countries and nations have over the history been fighting for. In this case the indigenous people invested into their sovereignty countless lives and suffering, and 2 centuries later it starts to pay off (similar to many other countries/nations in today's world who had been fighting for their freedom for decades and centuries until finally achieving it).
  • nightowl_games 3y ago
    > power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?
    • crtified 3y ago
      If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Why would that be different here?
• amackera 3y ago
  Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • gotoeleven 3y ago
    How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?
    • FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
      There are various weird traditional middle grounds, e.g. the City of London.
    • TSiege 3y ago
      This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation
      • InitialLastName 3y ago
        > that would cover the entirety of canada This is very much not what we do in the United States. Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".
• piuantiderp 3y ago
  What are you going to do? It's an aristocracy, very difficult to remove short of revolution.
• rory 3y ago
  I wonder if a more workable arrangement would stipulate that indigenous people are exempt from these regulations only when the work and management of a project is also designed and implemented by Indigenous people. That would seemingly circumvent this loophole where a large, private corporation run by white canadians effectively uses the indigenous people as a loophole, cutting them in to circumvent regulations. Wouldn't really help e.g. overfishing issues but seems directionally better.
  • LegibleCrimson 3y ago
    Would be pretty easy for a motivated corporation to set up a branch composed entirely of those indigenous people for the purpose, or to form a partnership with a company of those indigenous people.
    • Descon 3y ago
      This can and does happen
• FpUser 3y ago
  >"On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others." They did not ask to be a citizens of Canada. They were invaded, conquered, killed and actively suppressed. Mistreatment still continues. How's that for moral grounds?
  • typewithrhythm 3y ago
    Morality really only has relevance to an individual. Was it moral to invade Canada? No, at least not under contemporary morality. Is it moral to give a random subset of people special rights in modern Canada? Is a seperate question, that has nothing to do with historical treatment. My take is that the current government does not adequately represent several groups in Canada, and the best solution would be to allow for separatist actions as a fundamental human right.
    • FpUser 3y ago
      >"and the best solution would be to allow for separatist actions as a fundamental human right." This will lead to countless wars.
  • layer8 3y ago
    Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada. Nobody born to poor parents was asked to be born poor. Just treat everyone equally based on their own actions and merits, and their actual individual circumstances, not based on their broad ancestry.
    • FpUser 3y ago
      >"Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada" Tell that to Ukrainians who are now in a territory that Russia claims to own.
  • Manuel_D 3y ago
    By that logic, neither did New Yorkers. New York was largely Loyalist during the American Revolution.
• lm411 3y ago
  2024 Canada is an absurd time and place to be alive. Canada 2024: - Universities have "Black only" swim hours and segregated "Person of Colour" buildings - "no whites allowed". - Indigenous people get special treatment by courts (the courts were literally instructed not to hold them to the same standards as others) - The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women - Land acknowledgements... Everywhere. What a waste of time and resources that accomplishes nothing - (Of course, if we keep saying we stole their land -- they are going to want it back - and this is what we see in the courts) - And this is just scratching the surface of whats happening My wife works for a government organization, and even their internal emails have land acknowledgements in them. She has to take 1-2 days of DEI training per month. ... I could go on for hours. After living in various countries over the last ~15 years, moving back to Canada has turned out to be one of the worst choices I've ever made. And I'm at least lucky enough to be able to afford a house here. This country is imploding.
  • astrange 3y ago
    Canada did steal their land though, and then ruined it with NIMBYism. Now as you can see, they're fixing it.
  • barbazoo 3y ago
    What a strange view to call this an "absurd time and place to be alive" and that the "country is imploding". Lots here needs sources as it's hard to verify or taken out of context. > Land acknowledgements... Everywhere No they're not. They're heavily used within the government but in the private sector I have never experienced anyone doing a land acknowledgement. > My wife works for a government organization, and even their internal emails have land acknowledgements in them. She has to take 1-2 days of DEI training per month. Since I also have a partner working for a government organization and they don't have to do anything even remotely close to "1-2 days of DEI training per month" so this doesn't seem to be universally true. > The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women Are you referring to the couple of times the supreme court has used that term? At least one of which dealt with sexual assault. You make it sound like courts universally use that term - that is false.
  • ecoquant 3y ago
• dflock 3y ago
  They're the rag tag survivors of genocide, perpetrated by white settlers, over the past 200 yrs. Giving them a tiny fraction of their ancestral fishing rights back, now w that we've severely degraded the ecosystems they call home, is literally the least we can do.