Oh give me a home

Tisdale - October 7, 1999
Timothy W. Shire

what was the proper way for civilised people to behave
Though it is not always apparent the population of this planet have been gradually changing the way they do things. For several thousand years those with power and military forces took what they wanted and did what they wanted with abandon. But as the British began their conquest of the known world there was a serious and important judgment made. Invading and taking over did not necessarily mean annihilation or even the need for military conflict. What took place during the British colonisation of a large portion of the world was done extremely peacefully and with considerable thought as to what was the proper way for civilised people to behave. Looking back on that time today we of course can see the limitations that existed but we must also admire the motivation. In Africa the British referred to their system of conquest as the "White Man's Burden."

The British created the treaties and left them for successive generations to administer
Anyone who has spent even a few minutes reading over the basic contents of the treaties signed by the British with North American aboriginal people will tell you that the concept was both sound and should have worked. However, there was a serious flaw in the treaty process. The British created the treaties and left them for successive generations to administer and in time the provisions of the treaties were systematically eroded and in some cases set aside But since the late 1960s Canada's aboriginal people have being directing attention to those treaties and demanding that the provisions and spirit of those agreements be respected and followed.

courts have consistently ruled in favour of aboriginal treaty rights
Here in Saskatchewan reservation land which had been taken from First Nation people has been returned or replaced in many instances while many more land claims remain still to be settled. But even thirty years ago we all were aware that the treaty rights for hunting fishing and use of the land were authentic it has been necessary for First Nations people to use the court system to reassert those privileges which were inherently part of the treaties. The courts have consistently ruled in favour of aboriginal treaty rights when it came to hunting for food and now the Supreme Court of the land has taken that one step further.

was entitled to market the fish he caught
Donald Marshal a maritime First Nation citizen who spent most of his life in prison serving a sentence for a crime he did not commit proceeded as a fisherman, to pursue his rights beyond food for we all know that to feed one's family in today's world it is necessary to have things that one can not hunt or fish for. The Supreme Court agreed with Mr., Marshal's position and ruled that he could indeed fish when ever he chose and was entitled to market the fish he caught there by allowing him to derive an income from his fishing. The upshot of that simple decision is literally rocking the nation from shore to shore.

government is siding with the 3,000 fisherman and against the Supreme Court and the aboriginal people
The three thousand or so, lobster fisherman of Maritime Canada are outraged at the ruling and that Marshal and some forty other aboriginal people are taking lobster out of season. The lobster fisherman are wrong, the Supreme Court says they are wrong, yet the government has asked the aboriginal fisherman to stop taking lobster to prevent further violence from the non-aboriginal lobster fisherman. If you are reading this and not somewhat bewildered then I haven't made myself understood. Essentially the government is siding with the three thousand fisherman and against the Supreme Court and the aboriginal people, there is nothing new here just that now it is a little clearer as to what is happening.

Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, prairie Bison, Pacific salmon
All across the country people are discussing this situation and surprisingly there are huge numbers of people making some pretty silly arguments about the suspicion that the aboriginal people will not respect the rules of conservation and harvesting that will sustain the continued existence of Canada's wild life. These arguments are outrageous and to the First Nations people they smack of insulting racism. Let us consider that the disappearance of vast numbers of species has been carried out within the legal operation of various regulations. Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, prairie Bison, Pacific salmon all of these species brought almost to extinction under government regulation with no aboriginal involvement.

As long as the sun shines and the grass grows
As long as the sun shines and the grass grows the terms of the First Nations Treaties were to be in affect and yet governments federally and provincially have used every legal move at their disposal to deny the rights of the treaties. Without armed conquest and with provision for mutual assistance the treaties were signed yet even with the decisions of the Supreme Court endorsing those rights the governments continue to renege on the original terms of the agreement.


Tisdale - October 7, 1999 Timothy W. Shire

what was the proper way for civilised people to behave	Though it is not always apparent the population of this planet have been gradually changing the way they do things. For several thousand years those with power and military forces took what they wanted and did what they wanted with abandon. But as the British began their conquest of the known world there was a serious and important judgment made. Invading and taking over did not necessarily mean annihilation or even the need for military conflict. What took place during the British colonisation of a large portion of the world was done extremely peacefully and with considerable thought as to what was the proper way for civilised people to behave. Looking back on that time today we of course can see the limitations that existed but we must also admire the motivation. In Africa the British referred to their system of conquest as the "White Man's Burden."

The British created the treaties and left them for successive generations to administer	Anyone who has spent even a few minutes reading over the basic contents of the treaties signed by the British with North American aboriginal people will tell you that the concept was both sound and should have worked. However, there was a serious flaw in the treaty process. The British created the treaties and left them for successive generations to administer and in time the provisions of the treaties were systematically eroded and in some cases set aside But since the late 1960s Canada's aboriginal people have being directing attention to those treaties and demanding that the provisions and spirit of those agreements be respected and followed.

courts have consistently ruled in favour of aboriginal treaty rights	Here in Saskatchewan reservation land which had been taken from First Nation people has been returned or replaced in many instances while many more land claims remain still to be settled. But even thirty years ago we all were aware that the treaty rights for hunting fishing and use of the land were authentic it has been necessary for First Nations people to use the court system to reassert those privileges which were inherently part of the treaties. The courts have consistently ruled in favour of aboriginal treaty rights when it came to hunting for food and now the Supreme Court of the land has taken that one step further.

was entitled to market the fish he caught	Donald Marshal a maritime First Nation citizen who spent most of his life in prison serving a sentence for a crime he did not commit proceeded as a fisherman, to pursue his rights beyond food for we all know that to feed one's family in today's world it is necessary to have things that one can not hunt or fish for. The Supreme Court agreed with Mr., Marshal's position and ruled that he could indeed fish when ever he chose and was entitled to market the fish he caught there by allowing him to derive an income from his fishing. The upshot of that simple decision is literally rocking the nation from shore to shore.

government is siding with the 3,000 fisherman and against the Supreme Court and the aboriginal people	The three thousand or so, lobster fisherman of Maritime Canada are outraged at the ruling and that Marshal and some forty other aboriginal people are taking lobster out of season. The lobster fisherman are wrong, the Supreme Court says they are wrong, yet the government has asked the aboriginal fisherman to stop taking lobster to prevent further violence from the non-aboriginal lobster fisherman. If you are reading this and not somewhat bewildered then I haven't made myself understood. Essentially the government is siding with the three thousand fisherman and against the Supreme Court and the aboriginal people, there is nothing new here just that now it is a little clearer as to what is happening.

Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, prairie Bison, Pacific salmon	All across the country people are discussing this situation and surprisingly there are huge numbers of people making some pretty silly arguments about the suspicion that the aboriginal people will not respect the rules of conservation and harvesting that will sustain the continued existence of Canada's wild life. These arguments are outrageous and to the First Nations people they smack of insulting racism. Let us consider that the disappearance of vast numbers of species has been carried out within the legal operation of various regulations. Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, prairie Bison, Pacific salmon all of these species brought almost to extinction under government regulation with no aboriginal involvement.

As long as the sun shines and the grass grows	As long as the sun shines and the grass grows the terms of the First Nations Treaties were to be in affect and yet governments federally and provincially have used every legal move at their disposal to deny the rights of the treaties. Without armed conquest and with provision for mutual assistance the treaties were signed yet even with the decisions of the Supreme Court endorsing those rights the governments continue to renege on the original terms of the agreement.