First and foremost I believe ALL Canadians should be treated equally and governed under one law that does NOT favour race, religion, gender, etc.
No one on this forum has argued that FN have not been treated unfairly, inequitably and without bias or racism in the past.
Certainly, with respect to racism, this continues to date. However as it has also been pointed out by most, if not all, that this most recent negative reaction towards FN ( and other notable minorities) has arisen not because they do not wish these groups to be treated EQUALLY but rather because it is becoming apparent that additional latitudes, perks and preferential treatment is being granted to them which raises their abilities/standing ABOVE all others.
One does not gain equality of a previously downtrodden group by elevating position or stature of that same group to a higher position than all others - that is ridiculous and the outcome is rather predictable and obvious. All you've done is switched positions on an already inequitable footing.
So if you want to see hatred and negative bias continue then by all means, grant these groups special status and refuse to interpret vague and ridiculous terms like "modest income" in a court ruling and watch the fireworks. Allow them to remove themselves from the same enforcement construct as others are bound by and instead substitute self-enforcement by a patchwork of individual bands ( and even their own FN police) and see how that goes. We already saw foreshadowing of this in the railway blockades and the Mohawk police openly refusing to act on their own people even though they are sworn to uphold the same laws under the Criminal Code of Canada to both native and non-native people.
Meanwhile terms like "conservation" and "responsible harvesting practices" are applied generously to the rest of the population and some folks wonder why animosity exists and grows.
Now, in relation to statements that this is simply honouring Treaty rights agreed upon by our forefathers and that it is to be accepted in the full literal context it was written in well over a 100 years ago, then I ask you to consider the following.
Why is it okay to re-write history and apply today's standards, social norms and certain expectations on people, their actions and words but it is conversely not appropriate to re-open and suggest modern day practices such as conservation be applied to these historic treaty claims? Sir John A. MacDonald and others at the time were certainly not considered racist (by the standards of the day) yet we conveniently cherry-pick and apply modern standards when it suits some of us and not in cases where a different outcome is desired.
It seems to me that the lobster controversy would not be happening if FN chose to exercise harvesting rights WHILE respecting and not infringing upon conservation issues such as harvesting outside of "season", size/maturity of catch and adherence to accepted standards such as use of properly marked gear instead of ghost-gear, since these are all practices that were supposedly put into place for the health and fairness of the ENTIRE fishery regardless of who is at the other end of the line hauling up the gear.
|