Canadian Politics Today

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 08:22:48 pm


Title: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 08:22:48 pm
In recognition of a Truth and Reconciliation's recommendation, the Trudeau Government will be changing the Canadian Oath of Citizenship, requiring new citizens to pledge honour for indigenous treaties.  I'm of two minds on this.  I think it's a good idea in that it will be a symbolic victory for indigenous people.  Other than that, I'm not sure it actually does anything.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 09:02:40 pm
It was fine the way it was and I think trudeau has been figuratively castrated by constantly placating to militant chiefs.  My worry is that a lot of chiefs have racist tendencies and obstruct any projects for the sake of sticking it to the white guy even though their band stands to gain a benefit from it. 
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 09:10:02 pm
I'm sympathetic to that argument.  On the other hand, the Harper government did set up the TRC.  I think it would be useful to at least consider some of their recommendations.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 02, 2017, 10:15:49 pm
It does nothing in practice a second far as I can tell. If some indigenous people appreciate it then it's literally the least we can do for their suffering.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: bcsapper on February 03, 2017, 10:17:22 am
I agree it does nothing.  I remember when I joined the BC government with two friends.  We all had to swear an oath on the Bible.  An atheist and two Buddhists. 
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: poochy on February 03, 2017, 11:44:16 am
It doesnt do anything real, but i don't see any harm in it either.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 03, 2017, 11:46:50 am
I'm sympathetic to that argument.  On the other hand, the Harper government did set up the TRC.  I think it would be useful to at least consider some of their recommendations.

The TRC was supposed to be specifically about the abuse of native children in residential schools. It morphed into as wide-ranging a set of recommendations as you could possibly make, most having nothing to do with the actual subject of the commission. Immigrants pledging to abide by treaties would be one of those ridiculous stretches, and it's clearly designed as yet another dumb feel-good measure by a guy who wants every ethnic and religious minority to love him.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 03, 2017, 11:47:40 am
It does nothing in practice a second far as I can tell. If some indigenous people appreciate it then it's literally the least we can do for their suffering.

No, the least we can do is literally nothing.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 03, 2017, 12:34:57 pm
It's symbolism that will mean a lot to some people.  I think it's worth at least that much.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 03, 2017, 05:24:06 pm
I agree it does nothing.  I remember when I joined the BC government with two friends.  We all had to swear an oath on the Bible.  An atheist and two Buddhists. 
They didn't give you the option to "solemnly affirm"?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: guest4 on February 03, 2017, 07:13:33 pm
They didn't give you the option to "solemnly affirm"?
Yup, I didn't swear on no Bible!  I just said I would be a good/obedient employee and not say bad things about my employer in public.  Is this public?   
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: bcsapper on February 04, 2017, 12:51:17 pm
They didn't give you the option to "solemnly affirm"?

We never asked. Truth be told, we were so happy to be getting on we weren't going to risk any boat rocking.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2017, 02:58:01 pm
When will a new citizen ever need to abide by a First Nation / Canada treaty?   When will I?

Treaties are between Canada and a First Nation.   Should citizens also swear an oath to uphold a treaty between Canada and another country?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 04, 2017, 03:03:49 pm
I think the difference is that treaties between indigenous people and the Crown are considered to be constitutional documents.

That, btw, is not an endorsement of that by me.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2017, 03:08:41 pm
I think the difference is that treaties between indigenous people and the Crown are considered to be constitutional documents.

That, btw, is not an endorsement of that by me.

But individuals don't uphold treaties.  It doesn't make any sense to me to include it in the oath.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 04, 2017, 03:17:17 pm
It's a symbolic gesture that was recommended by the commission.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: ?Impact on February 04, 2017, 03:19:22 pm
But individuals don't uphold treaties.  It doesn't make any sense to me to include it in the oath.

Agreed. I think the point is just to make new Canadians aware of our obligations to the First Nations, but how you accomplish that is strange. I would understand if it were part of a citizenship curriculum (note I didn`t say test, because I think that is useless), but it seems out of place in the oath.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2017, 11:17:44 pm
But individuals don't uphold treaties.  It doesn't make any sense to me to include it in the oath.

Me either. Native born Canadians take no oath, so are only new Canadians required to make this commitment?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 05, 2017, 11:13:51 am
Me either. Native born Canadians take no oath, so are only new Canadians required to make this commitment?
The Queen is Canada. By birth and by law you owe allegiance to the Queen, oath or not. The citizenship process makes it explicit.

Now, when it comes to treaties with the indigenous people, our government is required to uphold them and the government represents its citizens. Therefore, we are required to honour the treaties and do so through the government. You're committed to the treaties whether you want to be or not, since they were made on behalf of the nation.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 05, 2017, 01:29:25 pm
Shouldn't there be something in there about the Consititution then too?  Individuals have allegiance to the Queen....   they don't uphold treaties (or the Consititution).   It simply doesn't make sense.   I suppose it feels good to the government to include First Nations.   I think it's pandering. 
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 05, 2017, 01:44:08 pm
It is pandering.

The Queen is the constitution, but she's also the treaties.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: TimG on February 05, 2017, 02:18:40 pm
Now, when it comes to treaties with the indigenous people, our government is required to uphold them and the government represents its citizens. Therefore, we are required to honour the treaties and do so through the government. You're committed to the treaties whether you want to be or not, since they were made on behalf of the nation.
The modern interpretation of these treaties has nothing do with the law or the constitution and is really just a framework that has been foisted on the country by activist judges. Eventually there will have to be a reckoning where the non-native majority will elect politicians who are willing to get rid of the racist, neo-feudal system being pushed by the courts and replace it with one where Canadians are not granted special rights based on their DNA.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 05, 2017, 03:01:04 pm
The Queen is Canada. By birth and by law you owe allegiance to the Queen, oath or not. The citizenship process makes it explicit.

Now, when it comes to treaties with the indigenous people, our government is required to uphold them and the government represents its citizens. Therefore, we are required to honour the treaties and do so through the government. You're committed to the treaties whether you want to be or not, since they were made on behalf of the nation.

Exactly, so what is the point in making it part of the oath, particularly an oath that not all citizens are required to take.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 05, 2017, 03:57:27 pm
what is the point in making it part of the oath
Like I said, it's the least we could do for the history of systematized abuse that they faced at the hands of our government and people.


particularly an oath that not all citizens are required to take.
All citizens are bound by the oath, whether they declare it before a judge to be deemed a citizen or not. It's literally your social contract as a citizen to this country.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 05, 2017, 04:22:33 pm
Like I said, it's the least we could do for the history of systematized abuse that they faced at the hands of our government and people.



The least who could do, just new Canadians?


Quote
All citizens are bound by the oath, whether they declare it before a judge to be deemed a citizen or not. It's literally your social contract as a citizen to this country.

All citizens are not required to take the oath so it is empty. Only the law applies. I believe Canada should honour its treaties but you can probably tell I'm not a fan of empty gestures. They insult the intelligence those who receive them as well as the question the sincerity of those who make them.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 05, 2017, 05:17:07 pm
All citizens are not required to take the oath so it is empty.
You keep saying that, but the oath applies to you as a citizen as much as it does to those who recite it at a ceremony.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 05, 2017, 05:22:28 pm
You keep saying that, but the oath applies to you as a citizen as much as it does to those who recite it at a ceremony.

Saying the oath means nothing, it is just patronizing bullshit. The Constitution rules.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 05, 2017, 05:31:12 pm
Saying the oath means nothing, it is just patronizing bullshit. The Constitution rules.
It's a constitutional monarchy. So the monarch rules as well.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 05, 2017, 06:30:50 pm
It's a symbolic gesture that was recommended by the commission.

So what? Screw the commission. Almost all of its recommendations had nothing to do with the point the commission was formed to address. If Harper had remained PM the report from the commission would have gone into the recycle bin where it belonged.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 05, 2017, 06:36:41 pm
I just see this as being pretty harmless.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: Nipples Von Graham on February 06, 2017, 10:55:47 pm
No, the least we can do is literally nothing.

Well next to nothing, this would be the least we could do. 
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 08:21:32 am
You've got to wonder why the objection to it. If it's functionally useless, yet extends an olive branch as a sign of reconciliation, why would anyone oppose this? That's what I want to know.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 01:16:45 pm
You've got to wonder why the objection to it. If it's functionally useless, yet extends an olive branch as a sign of reconciliation, why would anyone oppose this? That's what I want to know.

Why would you want to make an oath functionally useless? Why have an oath at all in that case. It isn't extending an olive branch, patronizing someone with something that has no meaning is just insulting.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 01:41:13 pm
Why would you want to make an oath functionally useless? Why have an oath at all in that case. It isn't extending an olive branch, patronizing someone with something that has no meaning is just insulting.
Did you read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's explanation about why they recommended it?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 02:07:14 pm
Why would you want to make an oath functionally useless? Why have an oath at all in that case. It isn't extending an olive branch, patronizing someone with something that has no meaning is just insulting.
Look at the passage.

Quote
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen
of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I
will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including
Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my
duties as a Canadian citizen.

Emphasis mine.

They're simply recognizing in an official manner that the treaties with the indigenous peoples are law. It's giving notice to the fact that the indigenous peoples have treaties with us and that we must observe that. You, as someone who's never taken the oath but are a citizen, must observe that because the government you elect must observe its treaties. There's nothing you can do to change that. This simply highlights the unique relationship the indigenous peoples have with the country and it makes new citizens verbally acknowledge that relationship.

Here's the full report if you care to read it. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 02:14:13 pm
Treaties are already law and Citizenship means you obey the laws of the country, period. It is just throwing someone a bone which means nothing.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 02:16:10 pm
Treaties are already law and Citizenship means you obey the laws of the country, period. It is just throwing someone a bone which means nothing.
And again, I have to wonder why the opposition to it when it is functionally the same whether it's in there or not. What do you have against the indigenous peoples' unique relationship being recognized?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 02:22:10 pm
And again, I have to wonder why the opposition to it when it is functionally the same whether it's in there or not. What do you have against the indigenous peoples' unique relationship being recognized?

I have a problem with any group being singled out for special recognition. We have obligations toward FN peoples that are spelled out in the Constitution and treaties, I think singling out any group for special consideration is a mistake both for the country and for them.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 02:23:41 pm
I have a problem with any group being singled out for special recognition.
Which is exactly why the indigenous peoples need to be singled out for recognition, because they're not "any group."
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 02:34:33 pm
That's just the way I see it. I don't think telling one group they are somehow special compared to other citizens is positive, it just leads to a sense of entitlement that is not good for anyone. I do believe we have to live up to our obligations as set out in our Constitution, laws and treaties.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 02:38:47 pm
That's just the way I see it. I don't think telling one group they are somehow special compared to other citizens is positive, it just leads to a sense of entitlement that is not good for anyone. I do believe we have to live up to our obligations as set out in our Constitution, laws and treaties.
It's not some decree that they're "special." It's an affirmation of their unique standing in our society. They're not like other citizens and their relationships to the state and the monarch is different.

Edit: You want them to simply be just another citizen of Canada and they're not that socially, historically, nor legally.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 02:59:10 pm
It's not some decree that they're "special." It's an affirmation of their unique standing in our society. They're not like other citizens and their relationships to the state and the monarch is different.

Edit: You want them to simply be just another citizen of Canada and they're not that socially, historically, nor legally.

No, they aren't just another citizen but their status is defined in our laws, that's enough.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 03:06:43 pm
Yes and now newcomers to the country have to explicitly recognize that.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: ?Impact on February 07, 2017, 03:19:08 pm
I have a problem with any group being singled out for special recognition.

I don't have a problem with that they are special in many ways. I agree that it seems silly that the oath is used, as it does not really apply there. As I have said many times before, I think we need to look at how we integrate new Canadian citizens. The oath is simply the final step, but we need to do a much better job earlier on. The test is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 03:56:14 pm
What don't you like about the test?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: wilber on February 07, 2017, 03:59:07 pm
Yes and now newcomers to the country have to explicitly recognize that.

Why make them different than other citizens who haven't taken  the oath. Citizenship is citizenship, parts of it are not optional regardless of how you got it.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 07, 2017, 03:59:27 pm
You've got to wonder why the objection to it. If it's functionally useless, yet extends an olive branch as a sign of reconciliation, why would anyone oppose this? That's what I want to know.

Principle?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 07, 2017, 04:00:34 pm
Edit: You want them to simply be just another citizen of Canada and they're not that socially, historically, nor legally.

They would, collectively, be WAY better off if they were.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 07, 2017, 05:44:30 pm
Principle?
What principle would that be?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 07, 2017, 06:16:06 pm
What principle would that be?

That observing the law does not require adding in anything about treaties. Ordinary citizens have nothing to do with observing treaties. That's the courts' job.

This is nothing more than pushing aside the argument among some newcomers that they're not bound by the bleeding heart white liberal guilt over our history with natives. Progressives insist EVERYONE share their angst and guilt at being related to people who won a war instead of those who lost one.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 08, 2017, 07:58:45 am
You think liberals want you to feel guilty about winning the war? You don't have a very good understanding of the situation then. You don't have to feel guilty about anything, but most sane people recognize that government sponsored abuse of indigenous peoples actually happened. That's the truth part. They also recognize that there should be reconciliation for those abuses. We're talking about kids taken from their homes and used in medical experiments. We're talking about **** and physical abuse that goes well beyond the paddling or having your knuckles smacked by a ruler like you probably experienced when you were a kid.

Nah, you don't have to feel guilty about any of those things. You objecting to the government making amends for them does make you look like a complete **** though.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2017, 11:49:06 am
You think liberals want you to feel guilty about winning the war? You don't have a very good understanding of the situation then. You don't have to feel guilty about anything, but most sane people recognize that government sponsored abuse of indigenous peoples actually happened. That's the truth part. They also recognize that there should be reconciliation for those abuses. We're talking about kids taken from their homes and used in medical experiments. We're talking about **** and physical abuse that goes well beyond the paddling or having your knuckles smacked by a ruler like you probably experienced when you were a kid.

Children have been abused by adults through most of history. If you look at the way British boarding school kids were treated back in the day, well, it was horrific by modern standards. Even the high end schools, like the one Prince Charles attended, could be a nightmare. The saying 'spare the rod, spoil the child' was commonplace, as was the sentiment. Nor was sexual abuse paid much attention throughout society, regardless of who the victims were. It was something people and institutions largely dismissed as unlikely or not serious.

Well and good. We're more sophisticated than that, now. But I fail to see how acknowledging that native kids were among those who suffered in those days, and compensating them, also requires we impose some kind of oath for immigrants to respect treaties.

Quote
Nah, you don't have to feel guilty about any of those things. You objecting to the government making amends for them does make you look like a complete **** though.

Gee, and I respect you so very much for your calm, dignified wisdom.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 08, 2017, 12:12:58 pm
You truly see no difference in how indigenous children were treated compared to "British" children? Give me a break. This was systematic abuse. It's incomparable. The way aboriginal children were treated was absolutely nothing compared to the schools that white kids were going to. White kids weren't used in "medical" experiments. White kids weren't left to die from outbreaks and if they were, there would have been insane riots against the government. We're not talking about ancient history. We're talking about **** that happened in the last 75 years. It's incomprehensible that you see no difference in the indigenous people were treated.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2017, 12:28:06 pm
You truly see no difference in how indigenous children were treated compared to "British" children? Give me a break. This was systematic abuse. It's incomparable. The way aboriginal children were treated was absolutely nothing compared to the schools that white kids were going to. White kids weren't used in "medical" experiments. White kids weren't left to die from outbreaks and if they were, there would have been insane riots against the government. We're not talking about ancient history. We're talking about **** that happened in the last 75 years. It's incomprehensible that you see no difference in the indigenous people were treated.

I did not say there was 'no' difference. I was pointing out that children were always treated roughly and their complaints ignored by society. The kids who were treated the most roughly were those without power, without parents to protect them. Society was awfully callous for most of our existence. Just think of how the British, a democracy, let a million Irish starve to death with little care or concern. And what happened to good little White kids in 1930 Ottawa who got sick but had no parents to pay a doctor? Nothing good. And deaths from disease were expected. We had over 14,000 new TB cases a year until WW 2. Heck, Canada lost more dead to the Spanish Flu in the years after WW1 than we did to the fighting. 

None of which has any relation to why we should make immigrants promise to respect treaties.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 08, 2017, 02:47:42 pm
For someone who says they're not saying there's "no" difference, you sure are doing a lot of equating and equivocating.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2017, 03:37:50 pm
For someone who says they're not saying there's "no" difference, you sure are doing a lot of equating and equivocating.

You mean placing things into perspective? I find it helps.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 08, 2017, 03:39:42 pm
So the abuse of indigenous people just wasn't that bad. Is that what you're saying? Historians are wrong. The government commissions are wrong. Indigenous peoples themselves are wrong. Is that it? I should privilege the retired white managerial class Canadian's perspective over those others?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2017, 03:57:15 pm
So the abuse of indigenous people just wasn't that bad. Is that what you're saying? Historians are wrong. The government commissions are wrong. Indigenous peoples themselves are wrong. Is that it? I should privilege the retired white managerial class Canadian's perspective over those others?

Not sure why you keep bringing up that stuff about me. First, it's irrelevant to the topic. Second, I was a high school dropout, a janitor, a busboy, a security guard, and a data entry operator in a modern sweatshop long before I was a member of the 'entitled class'.

And perspective always helps give understanding. Sorry if it shatters your illusions but I'm not the hand wringing type that worries too much about what happened in the past. I think more about what's happening today and what's going to happen tomorrow.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 08, 2017, 04:12:17 pm
I think I agree with both of you.

What happened in the past is important, and in many cases proper reparations haven't been made.

That said, indigenous people do need to be responsible for their own futures (individually, not necessarily in groups) and move past what happened.  No one can do that for them.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 08, 2017, 07:20:58 pm
Not sure why you keep bringing up that stuff about me. First, it's irrelevant to the topic. Second, I was a high school dropout, a janitor, a busboy, a security guard, and a data entry operator in a modern sweatshop long before I was a member of the 'entitled class'.

And perspective always helps give understanding. Sorry if it shatters your illusions but I'm not the hand wringing type that worries too much about what happened in the past. I think more about what's happening today and what's going to happen tomorrow.
Get this. Your perspective doesn't mean ****. That's the point. You don't get an opinion on how others have been affected by generations of abuse. Your perspective is to deny them their experiences because you're arrogant enough to think that your opinion on their lives is important. It's not.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2017, 12:23:22 pm
Get this. Your perspective doesn't mean ****. That's the point. You don't get an opinion on how others have been affected by generations of abuse. Your perspective is to deny them their experiences because you're arrogant enough to think that your opinion on their lives is important. It's not.

Well, you certainly seem to spend enough time trying to convince everyone that we need to modify our behaviour and thinking based on their past experiences and your hand-wringing sense of liberal guilt. So you seem to care a great deal about us having the 'correct' perspective (ie, yours).

I suppose you're right my opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours. So where does that leave us?

Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2017, 12:29:56 pm
It leaves us with a government that added a line to the oath of citizenship that's utterly irrelevant in your life and mine, but could make a very big difference for people who were systematically abused by the government.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2017, 12:38:40 pm
Look, I've been disrespectful to you. So I apologize. What I'm trying to understand is the nature of your opposition to changing the oath? Do you value the tradition and believe it should be an unchanging text? Are you concerned that it elevates indigenous peoples above everyone else in society somehow? Honestly, I'm sorry for being so short with you, but help me try to understand your objection.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2017, 03:10:07 pm
It leaves us with a government that added a line to the oath of citizenship that's utterly irrelevant in your life and mine, but could make a very big difference for people who were systematically abused by the government.

How?
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2017, 03:14:02 pm
Look, I've been disrespectful to you. So I apologize. What I'm trying to understand is the nature of your opposition to changing the oath? Do you value the tradition and believe it should be an unchanging text? Are you concerned that it elevates indigenous peoples above everyone else in society somehow? Honestly, I'm sorry for being so short with you, but help me try to understand your objection.

My objections aren't exactly strenuous. I think the miserable state of existence of natives in Canada is a national disgrace. It ought to be the number one priority of any government, of any part of the political spectrum, to fix it. Unfortunately, I can see no way of doing that while maintaining the reservation system that keeps natives as separate people, not quite Canadians, living out in the boonies where there is nothing for them to do but get drunk, fight and fornicate. Making immigrants swear this oath will have little practical affect, but what it seems intended to do is perpetuate the attitude that the treaties are forever, the reservations are forever, and natives will never be Canadians, like everyone else. I don't see that as being in anyone's best interest, most especially that of the natives.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2017, 03:29:28 pm
The "natives" don't see themselves as Canadians like any other and they're not. They had their own culture and political systems in place before European settlement here. They made agreements and in most cases those agreements were not made in good faith by the Europeans and that's never been reconciled. I agree with most of what you said, but the conflict is in this fact. The indigenous peoples aren't just another group of Canadians.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: bcsapper on February 09, 2017, 07:24:16 pm
I haven't read treaties or even read about them in any more that the most general sense, but it occurs to me that when they were signed there was not a great deal of difference between the situations of natives and non natives. 

I imagine most young natives growing up on reserves today would want nothing quite as much than being just another group of Canadians.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: JMT on February 09, 2017, 07:34:46 pm
I imagine most young natives growing up on reserves today would want nothing quite as much than being just another group of Canadians.

I used to imagine that too.  I was wrong.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: ?Impact on February 09, 2017, 07:37:50 pm
I imagine most young natives growing up on reserves today would want nothing quite as much than being just another group of Canadians.

There is nothing stopping them from moving off the reserves.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: bcsapper on February 09, 2017, 07:48:12 pm
There is nothing stopping them from moving off the reserves.

You would think so, wouldn't you?  Why do so many of them kill themselves?

I would also imagine, (and I want to make it plain here, that, as an immigrant I know little about the plight of Canada's natives, and am just saying what occurs to me) that they are terrified of doing that.  There are some, that I know personally, who live off reserve and do well, but there are a lot more who seem to do do poorly.

The picture I get is of young natives, with IThings and internet things and all kinds of social media things telling them what a big world it is out there, and they wake up every day in some craphole with prospects of ever seeing it all = zero.  Pass the glue.

I think that saying there is nothing stopping them from moving off the reserves is akin to saying about drug addicts, there is nothing stopping them from giving up the habit.  I just don't think it's as easy as it sounds.

I do not subscribe to the idea that they are different, or special, except as cybercoma says, legally speaking.  I don't think that helps the individuals.
Title: Re: Changing the Oath of Citizenship
Post by: SirJohn on February 10, 2017, 12:34:41 pm
The "natives" don't see themselves as Canadians like any other and they're not. They had their own culture and political systems in place before European settlement here. They made agreements and in most cases those agreements were not made in good faith by the Europeans and that's never been reconciled. I agree with most of what you said, but the conflict is in this fact. The indigenous peoples aren't just another group of Canadians.

But the problem is if they're not just another group of Canadians, what are they? Bear in mind that rural Canadians economic existence is predicated on the fact that towns and villages grew up to serve the needs of farmers/lumbermen/fishermen/miners around them. The economic incentive to go there came first, in other words, and sustains those areas. There was never any economic justification for the location of native reservations, and there still isn't. Take all the natives out of a rural reserve and transfer in a bunch of white bread Canadians and the place would be a slum within a generation. There simply is no way to live a modern life there. Living off government handouts turns people into welfare lifers who, as I said, have nothing to do but drink fight and fornicate. The reserves were established at a time when everyone figured all the natives needed was a spot of forest to pitch their teepees. Well, natives don't want to live in teepees and freeze their balls off in the dark. They want electricity, clean running water, health care, modern education, and all the other benefits of modern life. But they can't produce anywhere near enough to support that living out in their uneconomical reserves. Nor can we afford to drastically increase their funding, especially since their numbers continue to grow.