[Donny_Brasco]

PJB PJB:

Donny..I am talking about natives who use their right to hunt out of season to sell the meat that they are supposed to be using for sustinance.

$1:

sub⋅sist⋅ence   /səbˈsɪstəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suhb-sis-tuhns]
–noun 1. the state or fact of subsisting.
2. the state or fact of existing.
3. the providing of sustenance or support.
4. means of supporting life; a living or livelihood.
5. the source from which food and other items necessary to exist are obtained.

Are you really that sutpid? Or you don't see the connection between someone who is able to hunt for subsistence trading his kill for something he can live off of like ... groceries?

I guess you'd prefer your stereo stolen.

[Donny_Brasco]

PJB PJB:

You don't hunt but yet you scream about traditional hunting lands! Good double standard..Just out of curiousity how much land has the nation that you belong to decided to claim back?

Does the Minister of Agraculture farm?

How about the Minister of Defence, does he have any military experience?

Does the Minister of Fisheries actually fish comercially or for pleasure?

Where is the double standard here? Get a grip you are sounding a little desperate here.

[PJB]

Ok Fifeboy...You made your point. I have encountered natives selling meat off season. You may not have but you saying that I am not telling the truth is a bit off! You cannot and do not speak for everyone and neither do I. Personal experiences are exactly that, personal. I am not, and have never, grouped natives into a group. I have, although, questioned certain posters to provide facts and have been either ignored, dismissed or called racist.

[fifeboy]

PJB PJB:

Ok Fifeboy...You made your point. I have encountered natives selling meat off season. You may not have but you saying that I am not tellinginhe truth is a bit off! You cannot and do not speak for everyone and neither do I. Personal experiences are that, personal. I am not, and have never, grouped natives into a group. I have, although, questioned certain posters to provide facts and have been either ignored, dismissed or called racist.

My point was this: Living in a community for 30 years that was about 98% aboriginal (Metis) and having been offered meat or fish "for sale" about 3 times, I find your claim that this is a problem to
be--- well---problematic! Most aboriginal people are generous to a fault and see gifting friends with food as a way of establishing connections with their friends and an obligation to their family. The fact that I have had some white dude offer to sell me a joint does not make white people bad. (And no, I didn't inhale) The whole trend in this thread has moved from a discussion of "Indians" challenging companies rights to do whatever they want on lands the "Indians" occupy to a racist listing of the evils of aboriginal society. I say that sucks, and I will admit that you do not appear to be the worst of the lot.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

[
Yes you do have some work to do, work to bring your own people out a self inflicted situation. Perhaps in time you and your people will learn to stand on thier own two feet. It would be better for all of you in the end. And as for 're-hashing'

Like I said - fair market value or you can keep renting. Or go back home where they don't have Indians.

Or you can go back gome to Kamtchatka, considering that western culture actually buily everything that is Canada today (modern healthcare, education, law and order, industrializaition that brought jobs and a growing economy)the country and Candians would be better off if indians realized that.

What indians don't seem to get is that simply because they plodded over some fields in the past does not construe as free handouts today.

[PJB]

Hyperion...Your last comment is a little harsh. I really don't think that Donny is all that bad. He supports natives being far more accountable to themselves than alot of other natives in this country. Sure he can get pissed off and tell us all to leave but in reality some of us do the same to him.

It is too bad that the intelligent natives in this country, and I know there are alot of them out there, and the intelligent non-natives could not get together and work this out. I know there are people out there that want to make this country better for all of it's proud residents. We just have to break through some of the mutual hatred of each other over things that happened in the past and work together for a more productive future for all of us.

[HyperionTheEvil]

PJB PJB:

Hyperion...Your last comment is a little harsh. I really don't think that Donny is all that bad. He supports natives being far more accountable to themselves than alot of other natives in this country. Sure he can get pissed off and tell us all to leave but in reality some of us do the same to him.

It is too bad that the intelligent natives in this country, and I know there are alot of them out there, and the intelligent non-natives could not get together and work this out. I know there are people out there that want to make this country better for all of it's proud residents. We just have to break through some of the mutual hatred of each other over things that happened in the past and work together for a more productive future for all of us.

The issue to my eyes seems to be that he is wrapping the same old tired ideas of Canadians 'owing' indians for something in some sort of guise of reasonable behaviour. And for the record i don't hate him, indians or anyone else. What i do hate is the ongoing culture they seem to have of evading resposbility for thier own actions and then trying to pin the lbame on our country

Further, my comment that he can 'go back' is simply to highlight the point that indians have no claim on Canadian soil, romaing around for a few generations does not imply ownership, certainly not without anything to show for it except dubious 'oral histories' which seems to be the first line of defence.And if he is suporting natives being self reliant and actually understanding the economy of the 21st century where you as a person have to have added value to an employer, then it's curious why he always demanding more handouts on a continious basis. So let's say he understand the modern economy, it's also seems that a majority of his people do not, and yet he gets upset because someoene like myself points out the problms that his own people have created.


The tools for indians improving themselves are there, in place and ready to be used. It's an ongoing question that has yet to be answered as to indians seem for the most part do not partake of the same opportunites that other non-indians do. We have immigrants who practically beg to come to Canada in order for the chance to make a better life for themselves. And yet donny's creed is that Canadians are obligated to make thier lives better for indians.

He really does a need a reality check, the rest of the world in terms of personal proffesional end economic improvement doesn't care if your Great great great grandaddy x 10 hunted dear for a living or cuaght fish. People immigrate to this country and work thier asses off to make a better lives for themselves and thier families. They will do what they have to, move to different cities, start a business, go back to school and essentially make themslves better people by the dint of their own efforts, not by having thier hand out waiting for tax-payers to drop some cash in it.

What he wants basically is for Candians to simply roll over and say 'we're bad' as an excuse for more free cash. That this cash rapidly dissappears to god knows where doesn't seem to bother him, corrupption on indian reserves is of course, the governments fault.And asking difficult questions of why indians, when they are given money, don't seem to be able to solve thier self-created endemic problems with it is racist?

It's a circular problem, and again of thier own creating. They wanted cash with little or no strings or controls and they get, the problems go on, they complain about the problems that we as Canadians created, want more funds, these new funds fail to help them, they come back and complain.....etc etc.

[Donny_Brasco]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Further, my comment that he can 'go back' is simply to highlight the point that indians have no claim on Canadian soil, romaing around for a few generations does not imply ownership, certainly not without anything to show for it except dubious 'oral histories' which seems to be the first line of defence.

That statement is entirely erroneous.

We have legally recognized claim to this land.

Your idea that we do not is totally unfactual, one of your own misconceptions and I invite you to come to any Canadian court and present your viewpoint, at which point the judge, the Crown's lawyers and our lawyers will laugh you right out of the room.

Just because you are ignorant to your own laws, and you have wet dreams about Indians not owning the land you live on, does not make any of the bullshit coming out of your mouth legal fact.

Look up the Royal Proclamation of 1763 - you will see that your government recognized that we have claim to this land and that this land that you call home cannot be transferred to anyone but the British Crown in consultation and agreement with the said Indians that live on the land in question.

That is what the Treaties are for. Furthermore, our legal rights extend into the Treaties where land is set aside for us to live on and this land cannot be taken away from us without legal consent of our people in a legal vote. This is the basis for many land claims as much of the land that the Treaties promised us is missing. Many documents exist that prove that much of this land was taken illegally - hence the land claims system which is set up to determine which of these claims are valid and which transfers were actually legal.

ALSO, much of BC is not covered by Treaty and Indians still have legal title to ALL of the land as per the Royal Proclamation and they have never relinquished those titles - and therefore Canadians must account for all of that land if they wish to free themselves of the legal consequences of squatting on land that is technically not theirs - which is backed up by their own laws.

FURTHER to that ignoring the Treaties and ignoring the legal obligations Canada has to account for the land she now claims as hers is a dogma, where case law is created wherefore each and every title for every land owner can be called into question. Not just Indian land in dispute, but your neighbour's house and the lot down by the river.

SO...you think you want to put your thoughts in a briefcase and meet me in court and try argue that the Treaties should go and the Royal Proclamation should be ignored and the land claims commission should be disbanded and all the reserves be annexed into private property?

It would take me about 60 seconds to get you laughed out of court.

[Donny_Brasco]

And before you say the British Crown does not represent you, take a look at your own constitution where the Treaties and my rights to them are enshrined FOREVER!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (insert triumphant laughter here!)

[acidcomplex]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

i have internet in teepee

but seriously is it like a t3 or a satellite connection or what?. Donny relax

[HyperionTheEvil]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Further, my comment that he can 'go back' is simply to highlight the point that indians have no claim on Canadian soil, romaing around for a few generations does not imply ownership, certainly not without anything to show for it except dubious 'oral histories' which seems to be the first line of defence.

That statement is entirely erroneous.

We have legally recognized claim to this land.

Your idea that we do not is totally unfactual, one of your own misconceptions and I invite you to come to any Canadian court and present your viewpoint, at which point the judge, the Crown's lawyers and our lawyers will laugh you right out of the room.

Just because you are ignorant to your own laws, and you have wet dreams about Indians not owning the land you live on, does not make any of the bullshit coming out of your mouth legal fact.

Look up the Royal Proclamation of 1763 - you will see that your government recognized that we have claim to this land and that this land that you call home cannot be transferred to anyone but the British Crown in consultation and agreement with the said Indians that live on the land in question.

That is what the Treaties are for. Furthermore, our legal rights extend into the Treaties where land is set aside for us to live on and this land cannot be taken away from us without legal consent of our people in a legal vote. This is the basis for many land claims as much of the land that the Treaties promised us is missing. Many documents exist that prove that much of this land was taken illegally - hence the land claims system which is set up to determine which of these claims are valid and which transfers were actually legal.

ALSO, much of BC is not covered by Treaty and Indians still have legal title to ALL of the land as per the Royal Proclamation and they have never relinquished those titles - and therefore Canadians must account for all of that land if they wish to free themselves of the legal consequences of squatting on land that is technically not theirs - which is backed up by their own laws.

FURTHER to that ignoring the Treaties and ignoring the legal obligations Canada has to account for the land she now claims as hers is a dogma, where case law is created wherefore each and every title for every land owner can be called into question. Not just Indian land in dispute, but your neighbour's house and the lot down by the river.

SO...you think you want to put your thoughts in a briefcase and meet me in court and try argue that the Treaties should go and the Royal Proclamation should be ignored and the land claims commission should be disbanded and all the reserves be annexed into private property?

It would take me about 60 seconds to get you laughed out of court.

And you always ignore the rule of change.

You seriously think the queen has any power here under the name of the 'crown'. And laws can be changed and agreements ended my friend. Even the GG can't stop it, the crown which you look to is a rubber stamp. The government democractically elected can change or end these treasure 'agreemetns' of yours and then take it the GG for signing, if he or she refuses, he or she can be ealiy circumvented, and it has been done before

Further i find it almost amusing when you live in fear of us changing or ending these so-called 'agreements' and lash out, yet you continuously miss the obvious endemic problem of crime on indian reserves. So with a theortical question, your people dont seem to be able to uphold the law, or at best apply it selectively. What makes you think that a government cant change the law to suit the vast majority of Candians, not just the very small minority of indians with questionable claims in the first place

So after this you will threaten violence (in the line of you thought Caledonia was bad) Which is fine, for it simply moves you and your people more and more into the etremist camp, where you're willing to destroy and kill for money. Your people have already done so for cigarettes so it wouldnt suprise me.

[PJB]

Now Donny, You are being harsh. I could ask you for proof that you and yours actually inhabited the lands that you claim. Of course I would get the reply that I should look it up myself. C'mon folks. We are better than this. We can work this out without outrageous claims and costly court cases that basically prove nothing because we have too many justices that would rather be politically correct than right! Heaven forbid there may be a ruling that goes against those who bitch the most!

[acidcomplex]

yeah and my have inuit half eskimo brother owns all the ice and snow and land and tress so get all ya all asses of my land. aaaa heyauck yuck

[dino_bobba_renno]

What I don't get here is how many times exactly do these want to be consulted? Donny pointed out that this isn't an issue of a company not consulting with the local native groups before they conduct seismic but rather it's an issue over the government granting them the right to do that work.

Ok great. So now the government has to consult with them to give out rights, then the company has to consult to conduct the geo, then the company has to again consult in order to begin any projects, then the environmental consultations begin and then the zero impact consultations go forward and then ...... dear lord man.

Next thing will be having a consultations so that we can consult. No wonder treaty negotiations never get any where.

The company who is doing the work is going to consult with the locals before they begin any work, peliminary or not, so why should the government have to consult the native bands prior to this just to give out rights to do so? If we have to consult the native bands at every single step nothing would ever get done.

[Zipperfish]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

What I don't get here is how many times exactly do these want to be consulted? Donny pointed out that this isn't an issue of a company not consulting with the local native groups before they conduct seismic but rather it's an issue over the government granting them the right to do that work.

Ok great. So now the government has to consult with them to give out rights, then the company has to consult to conduct the geo, then the company has to again consult in order to begin any projects, then the environmental consultations begin and then the zero impact consultations go forward and then ...... dear lord man.

Next thing will be having a consultations so that we can consult. No wonder treaty negotiations never get any where.

The company who is doing the work is going to consult with the locals before they begin any work, peliminary or not, so why should the government have to consult the native bands prior to this just to give out rights to do so? If we have to consult the native bands at every single step nothing would ever get done.

I think your frustration is misdirected. The requirement to consult is due to a number of important Supreme Court decisions and are based on aboriginal rights and title. The First Nations have certain legal rights to land in Canada by virtue of the 1763 Proclamation, the Constitution and several important Supreme Court rulings.

When companies partner with First Nations in whose traditional territories they wish to operate early in a project, and work with them to develop the project, stuff does get done. I've seen it happen.