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

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Perhaps it is intended that we infer that, but they don't say it directly and explicitly, which in this day of skepticism they should, especially as we the people have very little influence once the election is over.

The fact remains that the crown owns most of Canadian land contrary to claims made by many native people allegedly based on treaties signed by the crown. In an interview I saw last week, William said that the monarchy now has too many links all over the place through the Commonwealth to prevent it from ever losing its power.




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
In an interview I saw last week, William said that the monarchy now has too many links all over the place through the Commonwealth to prevent it from ever losing its power.


care to show us that interview?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I'm guessing you won't have much chance of that unless your any good at reading peoples minds and imagination



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

The piece in question was in a documentary. I searched the media site and believe it to be a re-run of one of the episodes of the Diamond Queen produced last summer by the BBC. Unfortunately I could not access it any more on Canadian site, but perhaps you can on the BBC site.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Check my membership date. Since I have been a member here, you are the first one and only one to try to demean and belittle me.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by aboutface
 


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


Changed my mind. As opposed to the French Crown with which the native peoples had to deal with as well, so it is perhaps a Canadian term to differentiate the two, but one which is used her in that context.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


Heres an idea,dream on.

Look at it this way,the party is over and so is the bribery and corrupt crap .

It is racist to suggest that any human is lesser in any way than another by birthright.

It was a government and societal fraud to even invent the term aboriginal peoples,it is racist at its core,the terminology was invented to facilitate the imprisonment and abuse of an entire race.

In America there was once this tiny thing called SLAVERY,it was based on the same racist fraud for the same reasons.That issue has been corrected in recent history.

All treatys should be declared null and void,all payments to any Native peoples based on this fraudulent history must be stopped immediatly.A world court needs to intervene and stop theses humanitarian abuses from carrying on.We CANNOT have children being born into this world believing they are aboriginal or different than the rest of us,this is a blatant fraud.

These treatys and payments have only ONE PURPOSE,they are HUSH MONEY.

Welcome to the real world,it was wrong to have slavery for the EXACT reasons its wrong to even have a word like aboriginal in our dictionarys.These treatys and so called rights are all fraudulent and it is glaringly obvious.

As long as we allow the terminology to exist we propogate humanitarian crimes against a race of humans.

There is no such thing as ABORIGINAL,that word is contrived to support anti-humanitarian conduct by governments and the past societys who supported those actions.

ALL TREATYS AND BENEFITS must be removed immediatly as they are tantamount to crimes against humanity.


Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
After the Governor general announced that he would not be attending Friday's meeting it was reported that Chief Theresa Spence would be attending regardless. link

Another network reported that her attendance was uncertain link

Now it seems certain that she will not attend because a representative of the crown will not be in attendance. That point is emphasized as crucial, since the British crown was the one to draw up and sign the treaty with her people.

"We have sent a letter to Buckingham Palace and requesting that Queen Elizabeth II send forth her representative which is the Governor General of Canada," Spence said in a release. "I will not be attending Friday's meeting with the prime minister, as the Governor General's attendance is integral when discussing inherent and treaty rights."

Source



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
No offence to the OP but I consider the points about the Crown having to man-up and liberate the lives of suffering natives as silly and ill informed.
The Canadian government through it's parliament can enact any legislative changes it or the people so wish.

Want to fix past mistakes? Cool, Vote for change and lobby the elected lawmakers. The English queen will not attempt (or is even able) to prevent any of it, I assure you.

Rather than seeking to blame a current situation on an outdated constitutional situation, take advantage of the ballot box every Canadian has access to in elections.

For the record, I do not support a constitutional monarchy for my own country, the UK, but I am not naive or uneducated enough to blame the queen for Britains problems. They lie at the feet of the elected representatives in parliament.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
Another network reported that her attendance was uncertain link

From your link:



However, on Tuesday a spokesperson for Johnston said he wouldn’t attend the meeting. “(Johnston) is saying that this is about policy and that is the role of the government, it is not the role of the Crown,”

Kind of says it all really.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by one4all
 


It's very sobering to read this, and a part of me has been wondering how we might be perpetuating tribalism by continuing to set them apart. However they really have been set apart, so perhaps a discussion needs to be had about how to get to satisfactory integration from a state of deliberately relegated isolation. . .



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Who are the aboriginal peoples in England??Where in the world are whites considered aboriginal or Asians or Blacks???

What piece of land do we all get to claim aboriginal ancestry and rights from??I need to know as I am white and my family and kids need extra help from someones government and because we were displaced long ago I want to revisit this issue and recieve money for my troubles.Baa ha ha ha ha.

I say again,look up when the word aboriginal was created and added to dictionaries,that word is contrived and was created to facilitate humanitarian abuses and to allow them to continue.

The very word aboriginal is an act of racist fraud.

Because we do not know the exact genesis of human kind this entire issue is a mute point,and the word aboriginal is a fraudulent word.

All racist treatys and payments must stop immediatly and we need to strike the word aboriginal from our dictionarys.

edit on 9-1-2013 by one4all because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by one4all
 


It's very sobering to read this, and a part of me has been wondering how we might be perpetuating tribalism by continuing to set them apart. However they really have been set apart, so perhaps a discussion needs to be had about how to get to satisfactory integration from a state of deliberately relegated isolation. . .

A discussion for your parliament and elected representatives.
If any problems continue today it is the fault of the electorate failing to vote for change, no-one elses.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by one4all
All racist treatys and payments must stop immediatly and we need to strike the word aboriginal from our dictionarys.

edit on 9-1-2013 by one4all because: (no reason given)

Cool, then the Canadian people need to vote for this change. The Crown will not interfere if such a vote took place, regardless of the outcome.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


Easy to do,cancel all treatys and agreement,strike the word aboriginal from any legal proceeding as a racist word contrived to manipulate a race of people and the job is done.

I am from Canada and if you open your bleeding eyes you will be nothing but angry.

Many of the people you see attending the "idle no more"protests live a higher standard of living than average Canadians because of this continued fraud.

"Idle no more"should only apply to all the big trucks Natives buy with the hush money our government gives them with our approval.

Those treatys were raicist and crimes against humanity from their inception and NONE of them are valid.

Canada,USA,Austrailia,all these countrys have the Queen in common and the tactic is the same,but so what it is still wrong,racist and anti-humanitarian by proxy.

If I go to Africa who is aboriginal there??

Austrailia??

It is all one big fraud,and should have been corrected many generations ago.

Just saying the word aboriginal makes me laugh,and the fact that our governments are right now trying to nudge us all to see the truth is even more laughable,the very people who crerated the dynamic are now nudging humanity to correct it for them,ha ha ha ha.

Of course the word is racist and the entire treaty dynamic is also racist and anti-humanitarian.Simply suggesting that Indians need something the rest of dont need is racist by proxy,it is not a negotiable issue,it needs no discussion,simply correction.

Explain the Blacks in America away if you can,in order to keep the Indians subjugated we must deny the Blacks their rights and freedoms,and that isnt going to happen

We made Blacks slaves to make money,and we gave the Indians money to be slaves so we could steal more of their money and resources they owned before the Indian wars.
Without being subhuman we couldnt have justified subjugating an entire race of humans.So we created a special word and class to describe and corner these people into,its all one big fraud.

Blame the Churches and Governments who were colluding together back then before the millions of us here today were even born,they committed these humanitarian crimes,and then our populations exploded and we lost track of who did what.

Same with Quebec,no more racist motivated crap,you are NOT a distinct society,not at all,you are part of the global community and the buck stops there.Again an agreement our forfathers made that wasnt supposed to go beyond one generation,Quebec was a political cession or gift to the losers of a freaking war,it was not a RIGHT of any type at all,simply the politiclly correct thing to do back then,a thing that has been bastardised into this division amongst Canadians.

There is a man named Trudeau who is about to take center stage in Canadian politics and correct all this crap,wait for it,I can hardly wait myself.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Ah but there's a glitch called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 25 deals with "Aboriginal Peoples" and gives them the right to self-government. An interesting little read on wiki here or the original one here



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


The deeply entrenched legal support for this fraud would require an entire restructuring of generations of fraudulent decisions and precedents.

That legal barrier is unsurmountable without internationl pressure and assistance.

If we could do an internet vote that was in real time and included every single Canadian,we would see these treatys abolished immediatly,however as you very well know our system has been kept off the internet for this very reason,the tremendous and speedy changes we would see would ROCK THE COUNTRY.

An iternet vote would step above all the laws we have entrenched for generations and no way will we be allowed to do this.

Ask youself why we dont already have realtime cybervoting on ALL major issues???Because it would eliminate the need for 60 % of our government structures,it would eliminate the need for billions of dollars worht of liberal support mechanisms ect ect,it isnt going to happen so easily,and you suggestion that it is the voters failure to ask the government to change for them is flawed and is the exact tack the government took to keep this fraud running for so long.


The current political and legal structure was BUILT on this fraud,this is the longest running fraud in Canadian history.

The only way to stop it is for us to have online-realtime voting that removes politicians as policy makers and makes them into the facilitators they are supposed to be.

In one day we could solve this with an online question----do Canadians want to abolish all racist treatys ??

End of story,the numbers would decide and the politicians would facillitate that decision however they choose.

Pretty cool idea eh??
Lets try another shall we???-----do Canadians want Capitol Punishment for murders and child abusers??End of story pal,in 24 hrs we would say yes we do ,and if the politicians did their jobs and FACILLITATED as they are hired to do,it would be done immediatly AS THE PEOPLE WANT.
Easy fix isnt it???


For the heck of it just one more,do canadians want Nuclear weapons in our country manned by homocidal Americans who work for a country that suffered a coup de tat in the 60s????Or not.End of story.


Lets try America,--do Americans want the JFK murder reopened and sloved??End of story.

Do Americans want to be at war with anyone???End of story,all the national Defense crap goes out the window now doesnt it and the people get what they ask for.



Prior to the ability to vote in real time via the internet we were all subject to the bastardisation of our true opinions by various groups and levels of controls put upon us for many reasons,well SURPRIZE today we can clean up this stinking mess with one fell swoop,INTERNET VOTING on a regular basis ,and politicians who are HELD TO THE LETTER on theose decisons and who are forced to either be facillitaors or find new jobs.


I await your next reference to the flawed system we are deeply vested in as the solution,ha ha ha ha,give me a break.

The people are NOT being heard and represented and anyone with your grasp of how the system works knows this already.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Ah but there's a glitch called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 25 deals with "Aboriginal Peoples" and gives them the right to self-government. An interesting little read on wiki here or the original one here


Regardless though, it appears the supremacy of parliament overrides the charters.
As I said, if enough people vote for change and there is a majority view in parliament, they can pretty much do whatever. The blame for any continuing current situation lies with the electorate and who they vote for.
Some interesting links to support my assertion:

www.law-faqs.org...


Both the federal and provincial governments do retain a final power to declare that a law will continue to be in force despite the Charter. This is done under a section known as the “notwithstanding clause”: a clause which says that the Parliament or provincial legislatures can declare a law in force, because it is important to public policy, notwithstanding the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms in the Charter.


www.revparl.ca...


The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy as it exists in Canada was imported through the Constitution from Great Britain. In relation to rights and freedoms, parliamentary supremacy means in Great Britain that individual liberty has no constitutional protection. There is no fundamental law and there are no rights which are fundamental in the sense that they enjoy special constitutional and legal protection against interference by Parliament. The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights can be changed or abridged by Parliament even though they deal with important principles lying at the base of British institutions. The main safeguards against the abuse of power by the government and Parliament are really not legally enforceable. They are the constitutional conventions and understandings whose observance depends upon the sense of fair play of ministers, the vigilance of the opposition and individual members of Parliament; the influence of a free press and of an informed public; and the periodic opportunity of changing the government through free and secret elections. Therefore, in theory, Parliament can make any law whatsoever, no matter how seriously it curtails a cherished civil liberty



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by one4all
 

Interesting thoughts but it is up to the electorate to vote for change. I repeat, the Crown can not and will not veto any majority vote. But then you know that already. The issue lies squarly with your parliament, not the symbolic unelected head of state.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Good point. After all the constitutional discussions ended up with everyone sick of the discussions, I wonder if the governent and "we the people" have the guts to undertake a more comprehensive approach to this question again, because it seems to be going nowhere in perpetuum, sort of the guy with the foot nailed to the floor having to walk in circles.
edit on 9-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join