« Home | New Brunswick Tories BAN Blogger from Legislature! » | 17 Postal Union Members ARRESTED!! » | Nova Scotia NDP Makes Gains!! » | CBC Chickens Out on Douglas Movie » | Liberal Party Officials Should BUMP Volpe From Race » | NDP MP Gets It Right On Harper VS the Press » | Canada in Afghanistan: $4.1 Billion and Counting! » | Klein Takes Job With Fraser Institute » | Fighting Ignorance - 'What is Genocide' » | Taxpayers Federation YANKS Offensive Blog » 

Monday, June 26, 2006 

How Stephen Harper Celebrated National Aboriginal Day - SHAME!

So how did your new Conservative government celebrate National Aboriginal Day? Were traditional rights enshrined for our aboriginal citizens - or - was any apology offered to aboriginal people? Take a look at what the new Harper Conservative government did to help the cause of aboriginal peoples: Read Story - "Canada opposes UN aboriginal treaty"

Thanks, Leftdog. I've linked up to you and to the story.

Sounds to me like your a racist leftdog.

I am saying that as a human being who believes that the color of ones skin does not confer any special priviliges/rights.

Your comments say otherwise hence you are a racist.


Money Bags4Me: I'm missing something here. Are you saying that the treaties were signed between races?

If you had ever read any Canadian history you would know that the treaties were signed between nations. That fact that the majority of the signators of either side happened to be either aboriginal or caucasian makes no difference to the validity of those documents as treaties.

If you understood the treaties you would also understand that coverage under the treaties is based on criteria other than the colour of ones skin.

Perhaps you are familiar with the term "Non-Status Indian"? That is certainly a situation where colour of skin or lineage does not conmfer special rights.

So your argument that colour of skin confers special rights in Canada is at best sophistic reasoning.

I must have hit a nerve there, 'eh?! Oh and by the way, I notice that you use American spellings like 'color'. Do you have a photo of Gerorge Bush on your wall that you worship daily???

I have read far too much on history, the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms.

This nation to nation buisness is nonsense. You folks are avoiding the elephant in the room. It is all about skin color, it is all about race and it is all about quilt.

Sorry but I don't do quilt when I haven't done anything wrong or wronged anybody.

And oh yes, I worship the dollar sign.


ATTENTION BUCKDOG READERS: We have an individual who posts here who is a front for the CTF. He is particularly angry at Buckdog because we caught him doing something that got him into trouble. As a result, his anger appears here almost daily. Now he is using CTF 'logic' as it relates to First Nations issues.
Here is the link to the CTF 'aboriginal policy' area of their site. Take a look at the twisted ideology that the CTF advocates on relations with our First Nations citizens:
Link to CTF nonsense

The average first nations family of four gets $30,000 a year from the feds......excuse me, but I do not want any more of my tax dollars goings towards the racist reserves system. Amend the constitution and get rid of them. I've seen chiefs use federal money to buy their buddies golf memberships. I've seen the corruption in issuing public works contracts. Its a lost cause.

Throwing more money at a problem is a typical left wing solution that solves nothing.

With the tens of billions that has gone towards First Nations over the last 20 years- what do you think 5 billion is going to do?


Money bags, digger and phil,

You realize that it is a well established fact in Canadian law that all treaties signed between the Queen and natives were between soveriegn nations and not conquered peoples (othewise, no treaty needed). The Canadian government, representing the Queen, was granted access to native lands in exchange for certain rights and privileges. Access for a railway line or a road was granted by the natives in return for unfettered hunting and fishing rights, or rental payments.

These are legally binding contracts and agreements - offer, aceptance and consideration.

Since these were originally entered into, the Canadian government has taken over title to much of that land (not something the natives agreed to, hence the current "land claims" issues) and began managing native affairs for them, in a paternalistic manner, believing that natives were inferior and not capable of running their own affairs. They attempted to assimilate natives and destroy their cultures so they could get out of their treaty obligations.

It was the Canadian government that did all this, based on race. You all are now saying that it is ok for the Canadian government to do this, for the goverment to violate its contractual obligations or to attempt to destroy the other party o that contract, in order to get away with not fufilling its obligations.

Imagine if you ran your business like that? I think it would be called "fraud" and it is the method of "La Cosa Nostra".

From my perspective, it is you who are trying to use the excuse of racism to get out of paying for your legal obligations simeply because you don't want to pay what was promised.

Or it is you who are racist and do not want to admit it?

Or just greedy and not wanting to live up to the terms of a signed contract?

You know if you don't like the contract, negotiate a new one...like say, the Kelowna Accord.

The colour of ones skin does not confer special privileges. A signed and legally binding contract does. Relations with natives in Canada is not about race, but about signed contracts between soveriegn entities. As a member of the CTF and presumably a 'right winger' one would think you were familiar with this concept.

Geez, first I'm supposed to be David Maclean then it's some unknown American. Now I guess I'm supposed to be Tanis Fiss. Who knows, next it might be the great Satan 'Bush' himself.


Tell you what, Mike, you find an actual contract that I signed with some actual living aboriginal agreeing to be his/her meal ticket and I'll start writing cheques.

And if you want to start quoting so-called established facts lets see some links. This is the internet for Christ's sake.

Bags, you are hilarious.

The Queen, represented by the Government of Canada, signed the contracts with the soveriegn native "nations" - its why they are called "Treaties" and until they are renegotiated, they have the full force of law.

I would recommend googling "Robinson Huron Treaty" or "Robinson Superior Treaty" as two example of such a contract made between the Government of Canada (a soveriegn entity) and the Ojibwa-Cree nations of Northern Ontario (also soveriegn entities).

That you personally didn't sign it is irrelevant, it is a legally binding contract nonetheless. For a conservative, you seem to know very little about contract law.

As for the well established prinicpals of native law, try these:




Pay particular attention to the Royal Proclaimation of 1763 and the SCC decisions.

moneybagsfor me said, "Tell you what, Mike, you find an actual contract that I signed with some actual living aboriginal agreeing to be his/her meal ticket and I'll start writing cheques."

Do you see the absolutely nasty and ignorant tone of this individual? Fanatical rightwing extremists such as this are very very dangerous people.

Their world view is so twisted and hate filled that we must constantly be vigilant of them and NEVER be afraid to take them on and point out the flawed logic and mean spiritedness of their message.

I often wonder what has to happen in terms of 'life experience' for an innocent little child to grow up and be as angry, nasty and ignorant as the individual we see spewing his right wing venom on this blog site.

Clearly it must be some form of psychological dysfunction because of its complete anti-social and anti-societal premise. In the twisted world view of the extreme right wing, there is a consistent tone of total self centeredness. They care not for anyone but themselves, they do not comprehend community or public service.

Sad, very sad.

Now, this individual will respond with a typically nasty, self serving little retort that he will think is either 'witty' or cute. It will demonstrate my argument completely.

Puppy, all I want you to do is tie your arguments to reality, to real people.

You can't do it because you think in terms of abstract concepts that are floating outside of reality.

There is nothing evil or hateful about championing individual rights and freedoms. The smallest minority is after all the individual, we are all individuals. When individual rights are upheld we all win.

Mike, you are to be congratulated.

You are the first person that I have ever seen on this blog who actually produced some substance to back up his argument.

The links provided above, particularly the original documents, are quite interesting and fascinating but fail to make the case.

In addition to being called ‘treaties’ these agreements a lot of times are also called ‘surrenders’, which is more in line with a conquered people than the two sovereign and equal nations myth.

Besides which there is more than one definition of treaty, one goes like this “An agreement between two parties or individuals, especially one that formalizes the purchase of property.”

Interpretation of the original documents now seems akin to interpreting the Bible in that people seem to be able to prove anything by reading them. A promise to build a school is now interpreted to mean unlimited access to education, a single medicine chest has morphed into unlimited health care, hunting and fishing rights now means the harvesting of all natural resources, a couple of hundred pounds now means 8 billion dollars a year, etc.

Any supposed obligations have already been paid many times over.

As far as contract law goes this would have all been thrown out of court a long time ago already if today’s standards were applied. This is why we now have a separate branch dealing with this that has nothing to do with objective laws but the whims of subjective men. It is politics dressed up as law.

Mike’s comment “That you personally didn't sign it is irrelevant, it is a legally binding contract nonetheless.” is quite revealing, contradictory and stereo-typical of those who abuse the use of government force to arbitrarily trample individuals, violating their fundamental human rights, instead of rightfully upholding them.

Ironically this is exactly what ‘we’ allow the Chiefs to do to the people on their reservations and why so many of them are forced to live in third world conditions in the middle of one of the richest countries in the world.

The sooner this whole charade ends the better for everyone, especially for the rank and file natives on the reservations, particularly women.

But you all seem hell bent on preserving this mess,revising history and changing definitions wherever it's convient.

I'm sure the lady who just got her teeth knocked out for asking her chief when she might see some functional plumbing in her house thanks you for your compasion.

Hey moneybagsforme, your extreme rightwing nutbar 'Canadian Taxpayer Federation' roots are showing! You are beyond logic!


Since it comes from you I'll take it as a solid endorsement.

But just in case I'll do a logic self test.

Let's see 2 + 2 =

ummm... 3 ??

No, no, wait a minute,

5 it equals 5.

Nope that's not it either...

4 that's it the answer is 4.

Yup, 2+2=4

Test complete.

Ha, pretty cute money.

You've got more patience for these nincompoops than I do.

By the way how was your childhood?


I had both a mother, a father, and grandparents. Who all taught me and showed me through example how to take care of myself and be responsible.

Got lots of hugs, had to do chores, homework, listen to stories about the 'old country'.

Had a couple of dogs, some cats and a hamster.

I barely made it out of that hell with any sanity and apparently should expect to be in counciling for many years to learn how to feel quilty for things I had nothing to do with.(grin)

Good for you! I, like you, received the same. Too bad you have no recognition of the fact that many small children do not get the benefit of that thru no fault of their own. Not everyone is born with the same blessings that you and I have had. I was raised in an environment that taught 'that which you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me'.

Why then the nasty, hateful, hurtful world view for the less fortunate that comes from the right wing? Why? Those of us on the left simply do not get what your anger at the poor is all about?????

It's quite simple, being poor (or incompetent for that matter) does not give one the -right- to put a gun to my or anyone else's head and take what I rightfully earned by my own efforts.

They have the right to ask for help but not to demand it. And people have the right to say... no.

I'm not angry at anyone for being poor but get quite angry at the inappropriate use of force and those who try to use the poor to justify it. The ends do not justify the means.

Indian Chiefs who hoard all the money from Ottawa that is supposed to go to everyone on a reservation and then point to the terrible living conditions to get even more money is a prime example.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to help people, unless it involves the use of coercive force.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Some may think there is something wrong with being poor and their answer is to do something else that is wrong to try and change that.

Saying look at what good we did for this person while ignoring the wrong that was done to others to accomplish the good. To them the ends justify the means.

Well to myself and many others when you 'take' something that isn't yours it doesn't.

As far as blessings go.

I have seen people born with more than me piss it all away and I have seen people born with far less, through sheer effort and will power, go farther than I think I ever will.

It's not so much where you start that matters but what you do with what you got.

Which of course has little if anything to do with luck.

But that is part of the problem here. Lefties tend to think that money and wealth are by and large the result of either luck, fraud or outright theft.

So they don't have a big problem taking it from people because they have an almost impossible time believeing that anyone could actually make and earn it themselves.

Which is a denial of reality someone always has to make it for it to exist in the first place.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Looks like freedom of speech isn't exactly an absolute here either.


How could the Conservatives follow a organization like the U.N. as they sit by and do nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Africans who die each day.. the U.N does nothing.. hey they have Libya as the Human rights watchdog... hahaha...

Post a Comment

Follow leftdog on Twitter

About Me



  • -Carmichael-
  • Things I Read

    • -Canadian Political Viewpoints-
    • -ZAG-
    • -Next Year Country-
    • -Huffington Post: Canada-
    • -Let Freedom Rain-
    • -Informed On Information-
    • -Wellington Post-NDP-
    • -Trapped In A Whirlpool-
    • -Larry Hubich's Blog-
    • -ROGERISM-
    • -Leftdog's Daily KOS Blog Page-
    • -Dipper Chick
    • -Ideagist -
    • -Al Barger's MORETHINGS.COM-
    • -Canadian Cynic-
    • Saskatchewan Progressive Bloggers
    • My Zimbio
      Top Stories
    • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
    • Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
      View blog authority
    • Display Pagerank
    • Canada's NDP
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates