Is it time for the British crown to man up to its signed agreements in the Idle No More issues?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
First of all I must tell you that I am not a member of the indigenous peoples of North America and I cannot claim to speak for them. Through the years I have come to know and respect individuals from the Miqmaw, Huron, Montagnais, Cree and Ojibway groups. In all cases, the ones I met were proud people and in no way ashamed of who they were and are. As I got to know them, they taught me that they were not a “group”, but were, and still consider themselves sovereign nations of people. The British Crown entered into formal agreements with them and those treaties acknowledged them as sovereign nations.

Then came a dark period in our history when policies of the same British Crown became genocidal. Eliminate them or force them to assimilate. The various peoples were relegated to small strips of land during this time and placed in reservations often on arid infertile land or swamp land, despite signed treaties acknowledging their soveriegnty over their own lands. The residential schools were horrific examples of the cruelty practiced against them in this most despicable example of systematic eradication. The government created and passed a most heinous and racist piece of legislation known as the Indian Act.

And the ironic part is that while they were being systematically stripped of their lands in direct defiance of these signed agreements, my very own European ancestors arrived in Minnesota and were encouraged to move to some of these lands in Saskatchewan and farm them. The land was free they were told, and so my ancestors were known as homesteaders and honoured for doing this.

Now in my photo album my mother placed a couple of photos of my father taken long ago in uniform standing in a field. Before he passed away I asked him where the photos were taken. He told me that it was on native land that the government had needed to borrow in the 1940s in order to move its arms and uranium during WW2. “Did the government just take it?” I asked him. He told me that there was a signed agreement that stipulated the borrowed land was to be returned to the natives right after the war. He was adamant about that. I sadly learned that the land was the very same that saw the disgraceful police shooting of Dudley George not that long ago when they protested to get the land back.

I don't know all the grievances they have had in trying to get the crown to honour its commitments. However, over the years most thinking and informed people know that the natives have been royally scr$$ed by the crown and the government and every effort made to demoralize and depersonalize them.

Through all this time, the country has expanded its development without consulting the native populations, as evidenced by the recent government plan to build a pipeline across their lands, sometimes within a hundred feet of their homes. It is the duty of the governmment to consult with the people, yet they have been ignored as the plans were laid out.

Six years ago I passed an area where some astute native people had been protesting about the reopening of a mine near Sharbot Lake that they claimed could well pollute the Ottawa River with the mine tailings. Some even undertook a canoe trip to illustrate the connectivity of the flow and the water table. They were charged with trespassing (even though they carried their placards outside the mine's fenced property) and a couple of of young mothers knowing that their children would be removed from them if they were found guilty of the charge, could not continue. They were given only two options, plead guilty and desist, or go to jail and have their children taken away. I thought about the brave moms who felt they had to do all they could to protect their drinking water (and mine). So I drove up the highway about a quarter mile and saw the property in question, pulling over to the side of the road to see if I could see where the tailings were but all I saw was a mine shack. I was immediately approached by uniformed police and told it was against the law to even drive on this road. (A public highway for God's sake!) I was threatened with arrest and to my everlasting shame I let myself be intimidated.

So now there is an Idle No More grass movement from the younger generation who want this to stop. People are watching and many non natives are joining the protest activities. And in all this, despite their invitation to the British Crown to meet with them, the Crown is busy with jubilee celebrations and baby bumps and royal visits as though the native people did not exist.

What do you think is the responsibility of the Crown with respect to honouring its signed agreements? If your thinking is that much of this took place a while ago, then so did the saint Lawrence Seaway agreement between the USA and Canada. If Quebec separates, why then should the USA claim international agreement to the use of the waterway and control of it?

Please adhere to the ATS T&Cs. Prejudicual or racist posts are not welcome. This is about the responsibility of the British crown.
edit on 5-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
That would be the responsibility of the American government, they decided they wanted the land for themselves. Go pester them about it, out of our hands now.

EDIT: Hadn't realised the Indian act was Canadian.....oh well, same statement, except go see the Canadian government, not the British crown, they are independent from us. The commonwealth really means acknowledging historical ties.

Canada stopped being a British colony in 1867.
edit on 5/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


We still need royal assent for new laws and the queen is all over our money. The terms may have been modernized, but the governor general is still our head of state.
edit on 5-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I was thinking the same thing. What do you want the British Crown (who really has no power anyway) to do about Canadian land?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Your missing the whole point entirely, although you are correct.

I think it's in everybody's best interest that the treaties are honoured by the Canadian federal government. You like clean drinking water don't you? Your kids deserve it too.Bill c-45 is a big step towards destroying the treaties as well as endangering Canada's water supply. Harper doesn't care, and sadly either do most Canadians. As long as less tax money is spent on Indians, people will be happier.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’.

link



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Far as I'm concerned, they should be forced to assimilate. Were bad things done in the past? Yes, of course. But I'm sure as hell not apologizing for what my ancestors did, and neither are they. It's a new era, colonialism is dead (not for the better in some places, either), move on and stop sitting in the corner dwelling on the past.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


You are clearly ignorant of the issues at hand. Ancestors? You act as if this stopped hundreds of years ago or something..... [removed rude comment]

The last indoctrination death camp was closed in 1996. If you care to educate yourself further, dig into the "residential schools" my people were forced into.
edit on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:22:17 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


Firstly, there is no such thing as "the British Crown"..

Secondly, in terms of Canada, when references are made to "the Crown", it is the Federal Government it is referring to and absolutely bog all to do with the Queen or Britain. In a Constitutional Monarchy such as Canada or the UK, the terms Crown is used in place of "the state". It merely means the Government.

I suggest, if you have a problem with any new laws, you take it up with the sovereign Government of Canada and not Britain or the Queen, as we or she have no control at all over Canada and it's affairs. The last powers we had over Canada we handed over in 1981.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Firstly, there is no such thing as "the British Crown"..

Secondly, in terms of Canada, when references are made to "the Crown", it is the Federal Government it is referring to and absolutely bog all to do with the Queen or Britain. In a Constitutional Monarchy such as Canada or the UK, the terms Crown is used in place of "the state". It merely means the Government.

I suggest, if you have a problem with any new laws, you take it up with the sovereign Government of Canada and not Britain or the Queen, as we or she have no control at all over Canada and it's affairs. The last powers we had over Canada we handed over in 1981.


Exactly the same silly claims are made here in Australia. Most people have no idea at all how their government/country works, and apparently could not be bothered to find out.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I stand corrected on the term I used.

However on the Gov of Canada's website it says the following:

Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy, with a Sovereign as head of State and an elected Prime Minister as head of Government.


Doesn't that mean that the government is merely the manager for the monarchy?
edit on 6-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


By all means, do enlighten us.....

After all, we're just silly and don't understand anything...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


This threads not about how big your head is.....got anything else to add. Here's the long story short, these people have been screwed, and the poor, and middle class are next. Welcome to the United States of Canada.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
Doesn't that mean that the government is merely the manager for the monarchy?
edit on 6-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)


Nope, not at all. If there was no Queen, there would be a President. At any rate, the way a Parliamentary government works is that the executive and the legislature are one and the same. The Queen is just a rubber stamper, or in the case of Canada, the Governor General. The Government controls all the power and a refusal to grant ascent would lead to a constitutional crisis and (highly likely) the swift dumping of the monarchy.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.

In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people. The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration.


To me this means that if it looks like a duck and quacks...
edit on 6-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by hellobruce
 


By all means, do enlighten us.....

After all, we're just silly and don't understand anything...


I believe he was agreeing with you. As in your claims were not silly, it was the claim that the British Monarchy rules Canada that is silly, and people in Australia have similar silly beliefs.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
Doesn't that mean that the government is merely the manager for the monarchy?


No it doesnt mean that at all, why do you think it does?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 



The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration.


from quote above



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by hellobruce
 



The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration.


They mean the source of power lies with the people who vote the politicians in, and the limited duration is a parliamentary term of up to 5 years



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
FYI:

The Crown of the United Kingdom is not the same as the Crown of Canada.

Although the seated monarch is the same, they are, in fact, separate.

The Crown of the United Kingdom has zero say in Canadian politics, the Crown of Canada has the final say in Canadian politics.

And, yes, there is separate thrones and crowns, although I am unsure if Canada ever made a formal crown for the monarch.






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join