Page 5 of 12
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 18th, 2012, 3:33 pm
by Rwede
oneh2obabe wrote:Thanks for the links but to put it into perspective one only has to look at the 2010-2011 fiscal budget for Canada to see where all the money is going. Granted, native affairs gets a portion of the monies collected but it's a drop in the bucket compared to other departments. I might grumble about how the government spends our tax money but do I begrudge it being spent on CCP, GIS, EI benefits, Children's Benefits, Indian Affairs, etc., etc. In a nutshell, NO.
35.6B - transfer to persons - elderly benefits
19.9B - transfer to persons - EI benefits
12.7B - transfer to persons - CCTB and UCCB (children's benefits)
3.8B - transfer to persons - GST credit
10.0B - your figures showing funding of programs directed to Aboriginal people living on and off reserve
Your Tax Dollar: 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
http://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2011/html-eng.asp
Okay, the total of these "transfers" is $82 billion. A group representing 4% of the population should therefore get $3.3 billion.
An
additional $10 billion is disproportionately high for that group of persons, and does not take into account the 4% of elderly, EI, etc benefits they would already receive. In essence, they are costing 4 times the average of any other "group." To me, that is a problem, and is indicative of the culture of dependency that plagues that 4% of Canadians.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 18th, 2012, 4:43 pm
by The Idiot
Its not about Money.
WFN having their own school is similar to a french immersion or a catholic school. One being a language (not a racist thing) and the other being a religious thing (again not racist but as far as I am concerned religion has no purpose anymore) But lets not get into a religious debate, that a whole different can of worms.
One poster asked why they have their own school and still natives got to the Public schools. Well, even in a grouping as small as the WFN their is diversity and segregation. Some want to hold onto the language and the stories of old, some are seeking support from like minded individuals and some don't care about the old culture and others think it is stupid. Some parents have been wickedly hurt from racist elements and see the school as a way to shelter themselves and their kids from similar experience.
The Native school gives preference to natives but they will take on non natives if there is room. Like a family going on an elevator, would you push out a child from and elevator to make room for yourself when the rest of the child's family was already in the elevator? I would think not.
Some natives prefer to be invisible. Their is still hostilities towards natives and to avoid conflict they blend in. This could be a motivation for sending their children to public schools. Or perhaps the cultural diversity is appealing in the public schools as it teaches children to be open minded and tolerant of many different personalities, religions and ethnic backgrounds.
Many young children do not want to be called out and put in a spotlight for being different. Some like it. Its all a matter of choice and personal reasoning.
There was a time when Choice was not an option. Children were torn from their families, given "white" names, forbid to speak their native tongue, forbid to gather, some mentally and sexually abused. All in an effort to eradicate Indians. There was a time that Indians were not even considered a person and until 1960 they were not allowed to vote unless they renounced their native heritage.
The WFN is a poster child for Native bands across Canada. They doing great strides towards independence from sucking on the government for everything. There will be a day when the WFN is fully financially independent. Or maybe they will become their own micro country separate from Canada. Who knows. Its all about choice. a freedom everyone must and should have. Just don't use that choice mow down a classroom full of kids. at least in my opinion.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 18th, 2012, 4:46 pm
by The Idiot
Ok so i just read my post and this
"some mentally and sexually abused. All in an effort to eradicate Indians."
Is not intended to be read as it sounds. No one was sexually abused in an effort to eradicate indians.... as far as I know.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 7:20 am
by weatherloach
There are numerous links that showcase Sensisyusten and what it offers but if you want verification, let your fingers do the walking and call the school at 250-768-2802. The very nice woman who answers the phone will be more than happy to educate you. You can even make arrangements for a tour of the school if you want.[/quote]
You may also want to check out how to get to the school. I do know for a fact that the only buses that transport to the school may only be used by WFN.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 7:27 am
by weatherloach
Some people on here are playing the "what do you care what they do on their own land" card. I don't disagree with you but when it is against the very rules and ethics we teach as a society that is when it makes me mad, e.g. prejudiced, if we, Caucasians, were to practice this same line of thinking we are called racist and bigots so why is it fair that minority cultures practice it and they are praised for doing what they believe in after years of repression and hardships?
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 7:32 am
by rioghnacha
My non-native children attended Sensiyusten school for 5 years, took the WFN bus to and from school everday. The school is an independent school, funded by WFN and has a culture and language based curriculum. I think your racist attitude and misinformation are offensive.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 7:50 am
by oneh2obabe
weatherloach wrote:
You may also want to check out how to get to the school. I do know for a fact that the only buses that transport to the school may only be used by WFN. Seems your fact about school busing is wrong as rioghnacha has shown.
No whiteys allowed.This isn't the dark ages ... whiteys also Whiteys - Offensive Slang - used as a disparaging term for a white person or white people. The proper terminology is Caucasian.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 8:48 am
by zzontar
The Idiot wrote:WFN having their own school is similar to a french immersion or a catholic school. One being a language (not a racist thing) and the other being a religious thing (again not racist but as far as I am concerned religion has no purpose anymore) But lets not get into a religious debate, that a whole different can of worms.
You know, that would be so much easier to believe if they didn't build a beautiful beach/park which they made exclusive to anyone not WFN. I don't see what religion or language has to do with excluding others from the beach, but then another excuse will come into play.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 10:04 am
by zzontar
Off topic/Trip
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 10:38 am
by dirtguy
Use the report button. Thanks. Trip
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 8:14 pm
by weatherloach
rioghnacha wrote:My non-native children attended Sensiyusten school for 5 years, took the WFN bus to and from school everday. The school is an independent school, funded by WFN and has a culture and language based curriculum. I think your racist attitude and misinformation are offensive.
There is a daycare on shannon lake road that i know only offers services for native families, there is also a beach park that is only for wfn members. I do not see any other daycares or parks on public land that are only for the use of caucasians, or have a sign stating "no wfn members allowed". So who is the racist group here??? When a minority group fights for their own rights in this form they are praised for it yet when a white person practices the same they are called racist, you just proved that.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 19th, 2012, 9:36 pm
by coffeeFreak
weatherloach wrote:There is a daycare on shannon lake road that i know only offers services for native families, there is also a beach park that is only for wfn members. I do not see any other daycares or parks on public land that are only for the use of caucasians, or have a sign stating "no wfn members allowed". So who is the racist group here??? When a minority group fights for their own rights in this form they are praised for it yet when a white person practices the same they are called racist, you just proved that.
First of all, it would be nice if you could post a link to back up your statement.
HOWEVER, if your statement is true, your argument is flawed, in that it has nothing to do with the colour of skin, as ALL people regardless of race, including all First Nations people from other bands, as well as Metis and Inuit are also not permitted.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 20th, 2012, 11:25 am
by nextimeround
coffeeFreak wrote:
What does educating children have to do with Pickton?
It has nothing to do with educating children, and my post was clear as to the context of this statement. My post supports my rebuttal of another poster saying: "it's their land so why do you care how it's used". I responded that just because it's their land, or anybody's land for that matter, does not give the ability to do anything you/they want. No more than it was okay for Pickton to do his deeds on his own land. Of course if you actually read my post before trying to argue you would have understood that.
I'll add a note to everyone that all of the reserve land in Canada is held by the Queen in trust. In other words it's crown land owned equally by all Canadians. It is however set aside for the use of Bands (not for all First Nation people mind you, because only band members get the benefit of reserve land).
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 20th, 2012, 12:27 pm
by zzontar
Does anyone who agrees they (WFN) should have their own exclusive school, beach, or whatever, believe the apartheid was okay? Why or why not? Both involve one group excluding another group from using their facilities. I just want an answer about the apartheid, not comments about the yacht club or any other club, just the apartheid.
Re: WFN rights
Posted: Dec 20th, 2012, 1:38 pm
by Disneyland
zzontar wrote:Does anyone who agrees they (WFN) should have their own exclusive school, beach, or whatever, believe the apartheid was okay? Why or why not? Both involve one group excluding another group from using their facilities. I just want an answer about the apartheid, not comments about the yacht club or any other club, just the apartheid.
Apartheid! Give me a break. You have made so many comments about WFN and when anybody suggests anything contrary to your opinion you dismiss it. You have one purpose, to continually push your own belief. You do not understand the concept of private property rights, WFN Beach.
Just a question some questions.
Do you have any school aged children?
Would you want your children to attend WFN school?
Would you be willing to pay approximately $3000 - $4000 a year for your children to attend WFN School?
You make statements rather than asking questions, ignorance is bliss.