Libs Table UNDRIP Bill

[Staredintoabyss]

Would it not be nice if we treated the chiefs and citizens of Rutland with the same respect. They didn't want wet housing on "their lands" yet it was still done. Why do First Nations need more rights than the rest of the citizens?

Nowhere did we sign away our rights, so why do non-natives get to strip us of them?

Rights are granted by nations, they are something that is given and then enforced. Without an enforcing capacity we have no rights to speak of.
The idea that a human being is born with inalienable rights is both a relatively modern idea and one rooted largely in the Christian philosophy surrounding the idea of equality before god.

[Staredintoabyss]

A lot of lawyers are looking at this "law" and licking their lips, and there will be numerous industrial projects held for ransom and ultimately put on hold.
This Bill, compliments of the United Nations is going to open a huge can of worms for Canada.
Let's hope that the next government pulls the plug on it.

Good, for far too long Canadians have enjoyed using government protections to steamroll indigenous rights when developing on their lands. Maybe the natives don't want logging and mining camps near their reserves where men can go and assault the women, maybe they don't want mines popping up all over their territory and changing the hunting and trapping. This can of worms is something manifested by Canadas own treatment of the indigenous people, the UN is just holding Canada accountable for it.

You need a broader lens of history, it is not that clean cut. Mostly the powerful do what they want and the rest of us, ethnicity be damned, get to just live with it.

[Brass Monkey]

Rights are granted by nations, they are something that is given and then enforced. Without an enforcing capacity we have no rights to speak of.
The idea that a human being is born with inalienable rights is both a relatively modern idea and one rooted largely in the Christian philosophy surrounding the idea of equality before god.

Rights are granted by the Creator, my rights are inalienable whether or not the government agrees with it. I am my own enforcement of my rights and if I have to die protecting my rights then that is the way the cold wind blows.

[DoDo1975]

Rights are granted by the Creator, my rights are inalienable whether or not the government agrees with it. I am my own enforcement of my rights and if I have to die protecting my rights then that is the way the cold wind blows.

Sweet. Just like Freemen on the land movement!!!

[Brass Monkey]

Sweet. Just like Freemen on the land movement!!!

I believe they do more to rid themselves of the burden of law, rather than uphold their already existing rights.

[Staredintoabyss]

Rights are granted by nations, they are something that is given and then enforced. Without an enforcing capacity we have no rights to speak of.
The idea that a human being is born with inalienable rights is both a relatively modern idea and one rooted largely in the Christian philosophy surrounding the idea of equality before god.

Rights are granted by the Creator, my rights are inalienable whether or not the government agrees with it. I am my own enforcement of my rights and if I have to die protecting my rights then that is the way the cold wind blows.

You don't seem to understand what I was saying, or you don't wish to but I will assume that is not the case and respond in good faith.

Rights are a human concept in regards to expectations of behaviour between human beings to each other and formed around the shared human experience of life.

Nations, being the largest and most codified unified body of human beings has a strong collective capacity to decide and enforce a group concept of what "rights" they have, and while individuals may have more specific or esoteric beliefs about what their rights are, they are fundamentally reliant on the group agreement for enforcement and continuation of the desired behaviours across bodies of individuals.

When two such groups disagree over such rights we then find conflict, historically often resolved through warfare or treaty which are both reliant on ones ability to hold the other party to a desired behaviour.

The concept of "rights" that you believe you have is a social phenomena conveyed by your culture, human beings do seem to have a concept of fairness from a very young age but conceptual abstractions like "rights" are social phenomena.
Without other people not only do they not exist they have no need to exist as a hungry bear cares little for your idea that you are not food. It is the bears idea that you are which dictates its behaviour and unless you have the necessary capacity to enforce your belief on that bear its belief will end up being the important one.

While you may believe your rights are granted by a creator many share similar beliefs about the rights they see themselves as having and their divine origins and those beliefs often come into conflict as they are not always compatible.

The only reason the UNRIP has any meaning at all is that much of modern humanity shares certain common ground on this belief which gives it social power and enforceability.

[Ken7]

https://ffcs.info/undrip?fbclid=IwAR0Qp ... PJNdOQ1sa4

Watch the first video on this link. I'm uncertain if it has been post here, very interesting.

[hobbyguy]

A lot of lawyers are looking at this "law" and licking their lips, and there will be numerous industrial projects held for ransom and ultimately put on hold.
This Bill, compliments of the United Nations is going to open a huge can of worms for Canada.
Let's hope that the next government pulls the plug on it.

Good, for far too long Canadians have enjoyed using government protections to steamroll indigenous rights when developing on their lands. Maybe the natives don't want logging and mining camps near their reserves where men can go and assault the women, maybe they don't want mines popping up all over their territory and changing the hunting and trapping. This can of worms is something manifested by Canadas own treatment of the indigenous people, the UN is just holding Canada accountable for it.

There is a balance. We can not change the past.

Personally, I find that the codification of past grievances in UNDRIP is likely to result in more harm than good.

All people people are truly only indigenous to Africa. I was born in Canada, I am a native Canadian, I have no other country, but I am not a member of a first nation and have no first nation heritage that I know of - I happen to be white. I am not proud of the apartheid practices of colonialism and find them abhorrent.

UNDRIP is likely to have the unfortunate unintended(?) consequence of separating folks into tribes, and tribalism was at the heart of the negative consequences and abhorrent reality of colonial abuses. Those historical abuses can not be undone - we can only look to a future where the apartheid is gone, and that will not be achieved by another form of apartheid.

Reconciliation is the key. A better Canada can emerge, but there are many traps.

One of those is "hereditary chiefs" within a democratic society. It is an antithetical and entirely illogical situation.

Another is places and facilities that are exclusively for the use of one racial group (an abhorrent abuse of the colonial past). The "Jim Crow" south of segregation caused and causes much harm.

We are all in the journey to future together. There is only one planet, one mother earth. Together we can built a better future, divided we will not.

[Babba_not_Gump]

^^^
Well said.

[Brass Monkey]

There is a balance. We can not change the past.

Personally, I find that the codification of past grievances in UNDRIP is likely to result in more harm than good.

All people people are truly only indigenous to Africa. I was born in Canada, I am a native Canadian, I have no other country, but I am not a member of a first nation and have no first nation heritage that I know of - I happen to be white. I am not proud of the apartheid practices of colonialism and find them abhorrent.

UNDRIP is likely to have the unfortunate unintended(?) consequence of separating folks into tribes, and tribalism was at the heart of the negative consequences and abhorrent reality of colonial abuses. Those historical abuses can not be undone - we can only look to a future where the apartheid is gone, and that will not be achieved by another form of apartheid.

Reconciliation is the key. A better Canada can emerge, but there are many traps.

One of those is "hereditary chiefs" within a democratic society. It is an antithetical and entirely illogical situation.

Another is places and facilities that are exclusively for the use of one racial group (an abhorrent abuse of the colonial past). The "Jim Crow" south of segregation caused and causes much harm.

We are all in the journey to future together. There is only one planet, one mother earth. Together we can built a better future, divided we will not.

The problem is not tribalism, the problem is entitlement.

Reconciliation will not happen so long as Canadians maintain the status quo. The only way that reconciliation will be achieved is if there is a serious revamp in the perspective of the general public but that will never happen, some will never be able to shake their entitlement issues.

Your talk of togetherness is heartwarming but let's be realistic - First Nations people are a super minority, our needs have always and will always be put last because neither this country or the future is being built for First Nations. We need to take care of ourselves and that requires the acknowledgement that these lands belong to First Nations.

[Gone_Fishin]

When the Trudeau family feels this way about our indigenous people, I really don't see a way forward as long as Justin is prime minister. He will continue to treat our indigenous people with complete disrespect and any talk of UNDRIP or reconciliation is just him blowing smoke up their butts. Don't be fooled by his empty platitudes.

[rustled]

There is a balance. We can not change the past.

Personally, I find that the codification of past grievances in UNDRIP is likely to result in more harm than good.

All people people are truly only indigenous to Africa. I was born in Canada, I am a native Canadian, I have no other country, but I am not a member of a first nation and have no first nation heritage that I know of - I happen to be white. I am not proud of the apartheid practices of colonialism and find them abhorrent.

UNDRIP is likely to have the unfortunate unintended(?) consequence of separating folks into tribes, and tribalism was at the heart of the negative consequences and abhorrent reality of colonial abuses. Those historical abuses can not be undone - we can only look to a future where the apartheid is gone, and that will not be achieved by another form of apartheid.

Reconciliation is the key. A better Canada can emerge, but there are many traps.

One of those is "hereditary chiefs" within a democratic society. It is an antithetical and entirely illogical situation.

Another is places and facilities that are exclusively for the use of one racial group (an abhorrent abuse of the colonial past). The "Jim Crow" south of segregation caused and causes much harm.

We are all in the journey to future together. There is only one planet, one mother earth. Together we can built a better future, divided we will not.

The problem is not tribalism, the problem is entitlement.

Reconciliation will not happen so long as Canadians maintain the status quo. The only way that reconciliation will be achieved is if there is a serious revamp in the perspective of the general public but that will never happen, some will never be able to shake their entitlement issues.

How about if they offer to give up their entitlement issues when you give up yours?

Seems to me this sense of entitlement is a knife that cuts everyone who tries to grasp it.

Your talk of togetherness is heartwarming but let's be realistic - First Nations people are a super minority, our needs have always and will always be put last because neither this country or the future is being built for First Nations. We need to take care of ourselves and that requires the acknowledgement that these lands belong to First Nations.

I wonder if I'm the only one who finds some of this a little confusing: You're saying these lands still belong to First Nations' descendants via heredity regardless of title, NOT the colonials/settlers and their descendants - they have no legitimate claim. We can agree, I think, that title was not traditional part of First Nations culture (although territorial "ownership" - entitlement to use various regions - by tribe was a part of First Nations culture), and that title was never properly negotiated between the government of Canada and the tribes occupying the regions at the time of settlement, and that the negotiations that were entered into in good faith by the Okanagan Indians were never respected, but instead were rewritten by unscrupulous land barons and successive governments - none of whom were acting in good faith. This is our shared history of land occupation/use/ownership here in the Okanagan as I understand it.

So: When someone half Polish feels the land does belong to them by heredity regardless of title - despite being half non-First Nations - how is it this person has precisely the same full entitlement to claim the land as their own, regardless of their personal ancestry? How is it that only half the heredity matters?

Further, if I am able to show one of my grandfathers should have had a claim via First Nations because his grandmother was a First Nations or Metis, would I be entitled to say "this is my land" too?

How far back must we go to identify who is genuinely entitled to say "this is my land", and who has "entitlement issues" they are unable to "shake"?

[the truth]

When the Trudeau family feels this way about our indigenous people, I really don't see a way forward as long as Justin is prime minister. He will continue to treat our indigenous people with complete disrespect and any talk of UNDRIP or reconciliation is just him blowing smoke up their butts. Don't be fooled by his empty platitudes.

now we know were jt gets it from.........

[Ken7]

Correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is our First Nations actually migrated from the USA to Canada over land.

If this is so, I do hope they start in the USA and remove the land there first....just saying.

[hobbyguy]

There is a balance. We can not change the past.

Personally, I find that the codification of past grievances in UNDRIP is likely to result in more harm than good.

All people people are truly only indigenous to Africa. I was born in Canada, I am a native Canadian, I have no other country, but I am not a member of a first nation and have no first nation heritage that I know of - I happen to be white. I am not proud of the apartheid practices of colonialism and find them abhorrent.

UNDRIP is likely to have the unfortunate unintended(?) consequence of separating folks into tribes, and tribalism was at the heart of the negative consequences and abhorrent reality of colonial abuses. Those historical abuses can not be undone - we can only look to a future where the apartheid is gone, and that will not be achieved by another form of apartheid.

Reconciliation is the key. A better Canada can emerge, but there are many traps.

One of those is "hereditary chiefs" within a democratic society. It is an antithetical and entirely illogical situation.

Another is places and facilities that are exclusively for the use of one racial group (an abhorrent abuse of the colonial past). The "Jim Crow" south of segregation caused and causes much harm.

We are all in the journey to future together. There is only one planet, one mother earth. Together we can built a better future, divided we will not.

The problem is not tribalism, the problem is entitlement.

Reconciliation will not happen so long as Canadians maintain the status quo. The only way that reconciliation will be achieved is if there is a serious revamp in the perspective of the general public but that will never happen, some will never be able to shake their entitlement issues.

Your talk of togetherness is heartwarming but let's be realistic - First Nations people are a super minority, our needs have always and will always be put last because neither this country or the future is being built for First Nations. We need to take care of ourselves and that requires the acknowledgement that these lands belong to First Nations.

Entitlement? I claim no entitlement. The claiming of entitlement is the placing of titled people first (barons, dukes, kings etc.). Entitlement flows from tribalism, as without a tribe, how does a person get a title?

The reality is that Canada is a liberal democracy at heart. Some do not embrace that, and some racism flows from it. The liberal democracy part I will always defend, as no one has any rights in any other system except the entitled.

The lands issue is a tilting at windmills, and is counterproductive. If you seek to exclude you will create a perpetuation of ghettos. Exclusivity is a hallmark of entitlement. If Canada does not belong to all, then that is just another form of entitlement. Those that claim a certain hereditary background become entitled (as the barons and dukes etc. of England did). You can not trade one form of entitlement for another. The lands issue is a power play, and from the outside a power play by hereditary chiefs who appear to have their own entitlement at heart.

The racism issues will never be resolved, and in fact will be exacerbated by issues that divide, and there is no worse division that creating ghettos. Be careful of the divisive issues - divisions create tribalism. If you say "I am entitled to hereditary lands" - then you are chasing entitlement. When you chase special and sweeping entitlement, then you create resentment. When you create resentment you create tribalism and racism.

Whether we like it or not, historically the British and Spanish Colonialists and Americans conquered North America and took it from aboriginal groups. We can not change that. We can only attempt to redress the abuses and inequities. That requires working together - native born whites like myself, immigrants from around the world, decedents of those who came to North America sooner (15,000 years ago? - a nano of the earth's age).

My experience in working and living with what we label indigenous folks is that they are not very much different than me. Almost all the same needs, desires, foibles that make us all humans.

All of us desire respect, and that has been neglected for groups that were and are racially excluded. Disrespecting me because I am descended from "x" background will always elicit distrust and negative consequences. Disrespecting you because you are from "y" background will always elicit distrust and negative consequences. Even the thinking of "X" and "y" background elicits tribalism - for such thinking is founded on tribalism.

All of us have a tendency to have revisionist nostalgia for the past. I have seen folks who see a bucolic picture of a 1700s English village and wistfully long for the simplicity and peace of that time. They forget that life was short then, malnutrition not uncommon, a rigid class structure existed - economic mobility was almost impossible. So we must bear in mind that the past is immutable, the past is gone (you can't go back), only the now and future are what we have. We can not say, for example, that the residential schools were not a dark and awful thing. We can not say, for example, that 1960 was perfect (it wasn't).

Therein lies the fallacy of looking to the past for the way forward.

We can not undo the conquest of North America any more than we can undo that colonialism happened.

Those that nostalgically look to what was before can not move to the future. It is also true that those scarred by the past can not just ignore the reasons for the scars. The only way we can all move to the future is to work together to find a balance that works for all.

Those that say that Canada was "stolen from them" have both truth and fallacy in what they say. In fact that was a past Canada that is no more, and one that is misty in reality for our Canada did not yet exist. Going forward we can only deal with our Canada.