"Equal Rights"

[Lady tehMa]

I noticed this in the John A. Macdonald thread, and thought it deserved one of its own.

ssq was speaking of residential schools when she posted this.

It was a christian tradition, not just Catholic (and not only christians, but in NA it was) to stamp out competing cultures. So colonizing the New World automatically meant stamping out the existing way of life. When the indigenous proved difficult to stamp out , then assimilation was the next objective(not saying it was right by any means, but it was what it was). Things are (somewhat) different now, but we still have the stupid laws remaining (like the Indian Act), which governments have given lip service to improving, but it has got to go. Every Canadian should have the same rights, that's where the whole thing went wrong in the first place. People can talk about the "good" done by the residential schools, but the fact remains, white kids weren't being dragged out of their villages and torn from their families to "improve" their education or life skills. Now we have the
resources and the smarts to provide everyone with same basic right to clean water and sewage, basic education, basic health care, equal rights under the law, right to own property, to vote etc. So why not just do it and stop dragging the heels and making excuses? Just scrap the Indian Act, no need to carry on with the finger pointing, which isn't helping progress in addressing the problem. Obviously the ruling royalty at the time, as well as the church, and Canadian government politicians and officials all had a hand in it. Enough already, just get on with giving every Canadian equal rights.

The bold is mine.

Now this is not an area that I am very familiar with.

I am unsure as to how everyone does not have equal rights here in Canada?

[Silverstarqueen]

I am not an expert on the Indian Act. But it did classify certain Canadians as having different rights based on their aboriginal background. Things like property rights, ability to borrow money to start a business, right to educate children in their own village, their right to even keep their own children (many were adopted out), and at one point their right to speak their own language or practice their own religion. There may have been other results from this fiasco (those I have mentioned are bad enough), but the repercussions are still being felt.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/n ... dmail.com&

[Lady tehMa]

Okay, good start. Thank you for letting me know.

You're speaking in the past tense (did classify) and not present tense, but your original post is in present tense. Are these rights still somehow being denied?

[Silverstarqueen]

There are still restrictions on right to own property, or resell it, or to get a bank loan using the property as security. That's a pretty basic right that other Canadians enjoy.

[my5cents]

There are still restrictions on right to own property, or resell it, or to get a bank loan using the property as security. That's a pretty basic right that other Canadians enjoy.

I don't know much about the "right" to seize and re-sell property on reserves, but I suspect there are major restrictions if not prohibited all together.

Thus, me, a non native, owner of property, not on a reserve can use that property to secure a loan with a bank/loan company. If I don't pay the loan as agreed, my property will be foreclosed on and sold to resolve the debt.

What "right" should be provided ? Since a loan can't be secured by a bank/loan company with the use of property on a reserve, does the government secure the loan in the event it isn't paid ? To be equal then the government should secure my loan as well.

So we open up ownership of land on reserves to everyone in Canada, doesn't that negate the concept of a reserve ?

If we open up everyone in Canada to "equal rights" does that mean we all pay taxes ? Upon conviction will we all get sentenced under the same sentencing guidelines ? Will we all fish/hunt under the same guidelines ?

Equal should mean equal, shouldn't it ?

[Piecemaker]

A challenge with "Equal Rights" is that not all of us are equal to start with.

[whatwhat]

[Silverstarqueen]

There are still restrictions on right to own property, or resell it, or to get a bank loan using the property as security. That's a pretty basic right that other Canadians enjoy.

I don't know much about the "right" to seize and re-sell property on reserves, but I suspect there are major restrictions if not prohibited all together.

Thus, me, a non native, owner of property, not on a reserve can use that property to secure a loan with a bank/loan company. If I don't pay the loan as agreed, my property will be foreclosed on and sold to resolve the debt.

What "right" should be provide ? Since a loan can't be secured by a bank/loan company with the use of property on a reserve, does the government secure the loan in the event it isn't paid ? To be equal then the government should secure my loan as well.

So we open up ownership of land on reserves to everyone in Canada, doesn't that negate the concept of a reserve ?

If we open up everyone in Canada to "equal rights" does that mean we all pay taxes ? Upon conviction will we all get sentenced under the same sentencing guidelines ? Will we all fish/hunt under the same guidelines ?

Equal should mean equal, shouldn't it ?

By "equal", I mean same rules, laws, based on aboriginal vs. non aboriginal background. So an aboriginal and non-aboriginal, historically (and currently) are not provided the same rights with respect to land ownership, selling, ability to acquire a loan. "Equal" would mean that we would all pay taxes (although obviously right now Canadians do not all pay the same amount of taxes, aboriginals/non-aboriginals are under different rules), we would all have the same right to land ownership, same right to quality schooling. etc. Right now, indigenous do not have the same access to quality education, quality health care, clean water, right to buy and sell property, or inherit ownership of land etc.
So yes, equal should mean equal, shouldn't it?

[Silverstarqueen]

A challenge with "Equal Rights" is that not all of us are equal to start with.

But should that be based on aboriginal vs. non-aboriginal genetic heritage? If your family came to Canada with nothing (or with a fortune), you enjoyed the results of our educational system, were entitled to inherit the land or money your family had. An indegenous person might very well have been orphaned, had no home to inherit, regardless of the status of their family members within the last couple of centuries. Much of their land was appropriated, and they were relegated to "reserves", which they cannot buy or sell, or pass down to their own family members, where they can enjoy in many cases inferior education, healthcare, water resources. So that doesn't seem very much like "equal rights" does it?
If your family acquired some fortune through business or investment, or brought it to Canada,you would have some entitlement to it. You could sell it to the highest bidder, or pass it on to your own children. IF you were aboriginal you would be lucky if you even had a culture to pass on, unlikely that you would have real property to own or sell.

[Ka-El]

I am unsure as to how everyone does not have equal rights here in Canada?

Unfortunately, I am far too busy with other work to really get into this right now. However, I will say equal rights do not necessarily mean equal treatment or equal opportunity. While presumably having the same basic rights, marginalized people (by race, religion, socioeconomics, etc.) do not enjoy unrestricted access to the same treatment and opportunities as people in non-marginalized groups. Sometimes, before balance is achieved, counter-balance methods need to be employed.

[Lady tehMa]

A challenge with "Equal Rights" is that not all of us are equal to start with.

But should that be based on aboriginal vs. non-aboriginal genetic heritage? If your family came to Canada with nothing (or with a fortune), you enjoyed the results of our educational system, were entitled to inherit the land or money your family had. An indegenous person might very well have been orphaned, had no home to inherit, regardless of the status of their family members within the last couple of centuries. Much of their land was appropriated, and they were relegated to "reserves", which they cannot buy or sell, or pass down to their own family members, where they can enjoy in many cases inferior education, healthcare, water resources. So that doesn't seem very much like "equal rights" does it?
If your family acquired some fortune through business or investment, or brought it to Canada,you would have some entitlement to it. You could sell it to the highest bidder, or pass it on to your own children. IF you were non-aboriginal you would be lucky if you even had a culture to pass on, unlikely that you would have real property to own or sell.

Okay, This confuses me a little. I know of at least one person with aboriginal heritage who lives in a small town, buys and sells the same as anyone. Why is it possible for that person to do so? Does it have anything to do with living on or off reserve lands?

Just to confirm - reserve lands no longer are like containment camps - are they? I have a friend whose son just graduated with mine. She lives about a block from me. Her son is officially classified as Metis, does that change anything?

[my5cents]

By "equal", I mean same rules, laws, based on aboriginal vs. non aboriginal background. So an aboriginal and non-aboriginal, historically (and currently) are not provided the same rights with respect to land ownership, selling, ability to acquire a loan. "Equal" would mean that we would all pay taxes (although obviously right now Canadians do not all pay the same amount of taxes, aboriginals/non-aboriginals are under different rules), we would all have the same right to land ownership, same right to quality schooling. etc. Right now, indigenous do not have the same access to quality education, quality health care, clean water, right to buy and sell property, or inherit ownership of land etc.
So yes, equal should mean equal, shouldn't it?

Your "equal", perhaps would mean eliminating reserves.

I certainly don't profess to know anything about the rules regarding reservations.

For example I don't know the ownership relationship between an aboriginal and his/her land on a reservation, is that owned, if so, can it be inherited by a member of the family (seems reasonable).

If we are searching for "equal" then I as a non-aboriginal should be able to own land anywhere I want, including on a reserve, but that would negate/destroy the concept of the reservation.

But, forget reservations for a second, aboriginals are certainly permitted to buy all the land they want off of reservations and such land would certainly qualify for collateral for loans.

So in actuality, an aboriginal can chose to live on a reservation, with the benefits of same, or can chose to live elsewhere and own, borrow against property they purchase off a reservation, thus they have the right to live on a reservation or live off with all the rights of any other Canadian.

[Piecemaker]

There are numerous "aboriginal" people in Canada that do not qualify for any "benefits" as an aboriginal person. They do not belong to a band or reserve. They are non-status or Metis.
Aboriginal people pay taxes like everyone else EXCEPT Status Indians do not pay sales tax on items bought ON reserve. They do not pay personal taxes on their income IF it was earned ON RESERVE. If they work off-reserve, their income is taxed whether they live on reserve or not.

[Silverstarqueen]

ANd how would they pay for the off reserve land that they chose to buy, i.e. what job would they have with something like 40% graduation rate/relatively poor education? That does not mean that there are no indigenous people who have managed somehow to acquire an education, or land, or a job, some because they were taken in by white families through forced adoptions. On average, their opportunities have not been what other Canadians opportunities were especially for those who were isolated on reserves, the chances of integrating into the wider economy are far lower.
So the Canadian government did not take your parents, or your family and relegate them to virtually a life of poverty, on a reservation, or in residential schools, just by virtue of your family being resident in Canada before the White settlers.
In B.C. I think the indigenous population is around 20%. Look around, do they own 20% of the homes, the businesses, or occupy 20% of the jobs? Why not? IF their education and financial opportunities were comparable (and we know for most they were not), then they would have no reason not to enjoy the same standard of living as anyone else (on average).

"The report included some jaw-dropping statistics on the aboriginal economy. Between 2006 and 2011, the percentage of First Nations people on reserve over the age of 15 who had a job fell to 35.4 per cent from 39 per cent, the report found. By comparison, the overall employment rate in Canada during that period fell to 61.8 per cent, from 62.8 per cent."

[Piecemaker]

There are many who believe that those you described have had the very same chances in life that they have had. While there are always stories of those who against all adversity managed to overcome, the reality is that the marginalized usually remain that way.
The history and experiences of aboriginal peoples are not all the same. There are wealthy bands and very poor bands. Some had ancestors that went to residential school, some did not.
They are as diverse as the "white" Canadians are.
Racism remains pretty consistent and constant for all.
You couldn't pay me enough to have been born an aboriginal female.