If the stoogeocracy is ever replaced, I suspect it will be replaced by a system that also contains voting and elections.
Most definitely. Even anarchist communes have to find ways to decide about things collectively. The problem is not with direct or representative politics and decision making, or even voting as a means of expressing majority decisions within a representational framework. We're not nihilists, or at least, not yet.
For me voting is a personal choice. I have tried to persuade people to vote depending on the circumstances. I have normally told my children and grandchildren that it is a civic duty to vote unless you are objecting to the process itself. I have always voted although on occasion I have spoiled my ballot rather than voting for an NDP candidate that I knew to be a bootlicker not a truth teller. The NDP is the party I have most often voted for but I have also voted for other left wing parties and for clarity the Liberal Party of Canada is not a left wing party.
Every Canadian needs to make an individual choice depending on where they live and who is seeking to represent them. Of the FN's people I know in the community I now live in they are as divided on voting as they are in participation in the Treaty process.
Most definitely. Even anarchist communes have to find ways to decide about things collectively. The problem is not with direct or representative politics and decision making, or even voting as a means of expressing majority decisions within a representational framework. We're not nihilists, or at least, not yet.
According to the Statement, a co-operative is defined as "an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise." Co-operatives "are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of co-operative founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others."
Sort of a long form of what Kropotkin liked to call Mutual Aid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_on_the_Co-operative_Identity
* Please feel free to circulate this article to any Indigenous person thinking of voting in the next federal election *
Canadian Vote and Indigenous Peoples Right to Self Determination
Arthur Manuel
August 18, 2015
http://www.scribd.com/doc/275035280/Canadian-Vote-Indigenous-Peoples-Rig...
"Indigenous peoples need to understand the implications of participating in the federal and provincial electoral system, particularly how this may impact our fundamental right to self-determination.
When Indigenous peoples decide to vote or indeed run for political office under the federal electoral system, we are accepting that the Parliament is the expression of our 'political status' as Indigenous Peoples.
This means that the promoters of voting and running in the federal election are promoting the idea that we accept Parliament as the ultimate exercise of our political existence in Canada. This is exactly how Canada recognizes Indigenous peoples as expressing our right to self-determination: as voters and candidates in their elections.
Collectively Indigenous Peoples never decided to participate in the federal electoral system. So Indigenous individuals who have affiliated themselves with Canadian political parties like the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP are deciding individually to act this way. For its part, Canada will be happy to use their participation as proof that the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples is exercised in voting and running inside the federal electoral system.
That is the kind of underhanded strategy Canada uses at the international level.
Collectively it is extremely important to understand how participating in the federal election will undermine our right to self-determination and we should not overlook this fact when making decisions about participating and running in Canadian federal or provincial elections."
* Please feel free to circulate this article to any Indigenous person thinking of voting in the next federal election *
Indigenous peoples need to understand...
And be sure to tell them that they NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
* Please feel free to circulate this article to any Indigenous person thinking of voting in the next federal election *Indigenous peoples need to understand...And be sure to tell them that they NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
Yeah for sure I must tell my Aboriginal friends and aquaintences that they can't miss out on some white guy starting a thread to tell them they should not vote and call the collaborators for doing so. Bet even those who don't want to vote will appreciate non FN people getting intot the conversation so that they really know what to do.
Love the accusation of race baiting here -- in a thread started by white people to tell First Nations people not to use their voting rights.
There was a time when a thread lecturing FN would not be allowed here but those were the old days.
(And for the feeble minded: Bloody right I am being sarcastic.)
hmmmm. interesting article by Arthur.
* Please feel free to circulate this article to any Indigenous person thinking of voting in the next federal election *Indigenous peoples need to understand...And be sure to tell them that they NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
Both quotes from are Arthur Manuel, not from NDPP.
Very well.
But why does his name show up beside them, and not Arthur Manuel's?
Collectively it is extremely important to understand how participating in the federal election will undermine our right to self-determination and we should not overlook this fact when making decisions about participating and running in Canadian federal or provincial elections."
Band elections also support the legitimacy of the current system. So following the logic of this article, should FN's also boycott band elections?
depends on if a hereditary Chief is running or not.....;)
Very well.
But why does his name show up beside them, and not Arthur Manuel's?
Click his link, and you will find out! His post is copy-pasted.
Hehe. I got that.
I'm just pointing out that if he posted those words here without commentary then they're basically his words too, now.
To Vote or Not To Vote in 2015 Federal Election - It Really Isn't About Voting - by Lynda Powless, Editor
http://www.theturtleislandnews.com/daily/mailer_stories/aug192015/To-vot...
"...Casting a ballot is about more than deciding if Stephen Harper gets to run the country again. It's the difference between ethnic minorities and nationhood.
If we are indeed sovereign nations with distinct cultures, laws, values and governing systems why do we need to vote in a Canadian federal election to protect those rights?"
If we are indeed sovereign nations with distinct cultures, laws, values and governing systems why do we need to vote in a Canadian federal election to protect those rights?"
Well, if these sovereign nations are printing their own currency, signing their own trade agreements and making their own laws then they surely don't.
i don't buy it's a difference between ethnic minorities and nationhood.
if you wanna go this route then you'd have to forego anything the "state" offers until nationhood was attained. there can't be some quasi half way state of being.
Time To Choose: Sovereignty or Re-Colonization - by Mike Meyers
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/08/25/time-choose-soverei...
"We've reached a point where we need to choose a path..."
Time To Choose: Sovereignty or Re-Colonization - by Mike Meyers
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/08/25/time-choose-soverei...
"We've reached a point where we need to choose a path..."
This article probably should be read first -- it provides a greater explanation of the context around First Nations loss of democracy:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/08/06/we-need-be-free
This article written by the same author is a good starting place for a discussion about what Nation-to-Nation means.
"The other major challenge is that we are always having to argue over their laws, policies or regulations. What I have learned is that when we come to the table with our own laws, policies and regulations there is a dynamic shift in process. When we do this we are engaging in a process reflective of the principles of nation-to-nation and government-to-government. And isn’t this the goal we’ve been striving for all these decades?"
He speaks about how so-called "consultation" is managed by settler governments and organizations:
"...I have all too often found us engaged in a process arguing about a development or action that has already been planned and is on the verge of activation. We have not received any prior notice nor have we received sufficient information that would be the basis of formulating an informed decision."
In a real way those who believe in any concept of democracy place information at the centre of it. Without information it is rather difficult to make the case that First Nations are any other than Occupied Nations.
AFN Urges Aboriginals To Vote, National Chief Doesn't Vote
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/02/afn-urges-aboriginals-to-vote-na...
"...Bellegarde said he was following the advice of First Nation elders who advised him against voing, arguing that the Crown has treaty obligations that must be honoured no matter which party forms government. 'Out of my respect for those old people, I think that's why I haven't voted..."
Here is a good piece on the same subject as the Huffington Post
But for many First Nations people, the question of whether to vote in the election does not have a simple answer. It is not like being a Canadian who is told they have a duty to vote as part of their responsibilities as a citizen.
First Nations people are citizens of their own nations -- nations that have never consented to become a part of Canada. They hold elections for their own chief and council, and in fact voter turnout on reserve is higher than the national average. It's their government, so why wouldn't they vote?
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/05/Vote-Dilemma-First-Nations/
i'm gonna go with Ashley Callingbull's stance.
it's a good article in the Tyee.
I've seen it suggested -- whether seriously or not, I'm not sure -- that the citizens of other countries should be permitted to vote in U.S. elections. But let's imagine that only Canadians could.
We're our own nation, with our own elections, but of course what happens in the U.S. inevitable ripples outward, so I suppose an argument could be made for Canadians to embrace the opportunity to vote for the next POTUS. And I suppose other Canadians would choose not to.
I'd bet, though, that there would be plenty of folk urging us to vote Nader or vote Sanders or whatever.
ok let me get this straight you're trying to make a compare between First Nations in Canada and the USA?
I guess I'm suggesting that FN in Canada, as has been noted, are their own nations, with their own governance, just as Canada is a nation, with its own governance.
Agree?
But if Canadians COULD vote in U.S. elections, on the grounds that the result of those elections would affect them, some would choose to.
If Canadians did or didn't vote in U.S. elections would be no skin off my nose, but some probably would and some probably wouldn't.
I think that the common ground would be that the results of the U.S. elections would affect Canadians -- trade agreements, environmental commitments and so on -- and I do think that's a reasonable analog to what Canadian elections could mean for FN Canadians. It's not like they can just disregard the results of the upcoming election, and what it will mean for treaty rights, government support, or their own autonomy.
I'll be clear though; I'm still not here to tell FN that they must vote, nor that they must not. I can just see why, in a very material sense, they might want to.
I guess I'm suggesting that FN in Canada, as has been noted, are their own nations, with their own governance, just as Canada is a nation, with its own governance.
Agree?
But if Canadians COULD vote in U.S. elections, on the grounds that the result of those elections would affect them, some would choose to.
If Canadians did or didn't vote in U.S. elections would be no skin off my nose, but some probably would and some probably wouldn't.
I think that the common ground would be that the results of the U.S. elections would affect Canadians -- trade agreements, environmental commitments and so on -- and I do think that's a reasonable analog to what Canadian elections could mean for FN Canadians. It's not like they can just disregard the results of the upcoming election, and what it will mean for treaty rights, government support, or their own autonomy.
I'll be clear though; I'm still not here to tell FN that they must vote, nor that they must not. I can just see why, in a very material sense, they might want to.
Of course overlapping jurisdiction exists here in a way it does not with the US and Canada. And so, I don't find this a great comparison.
Certainly whatever happens to the other parties let's hope that the next government brings in some better policies with respect to Aboriginal peoples. There is a good chance of an improvement since it would seem that both the Liberals and NDP agree in large part on this. For our part, as politically observant people, it will be important that we hold both of those parties to these committments. There ought to be following this election concerted efforts to make sure that any new government hears from Canadians on this that we insist on a new better relationship.
Of course overlapping jurisdiction exists here in a way it does not with the US and Canada. And so, I don't find this a great comparison.
I'm not suggesting there's an overlap in jurisdiction in either case. I'm only suggesting that if one candidate favours environmental proetction, and one favours "drill baby, drill!" then some Canadians might choose to vote to block that second candidate, if they could, even if that means voting for another nation's government.
And that similarly, if one candidate in the Canadian election favours respecting treaty rights and not building a pipeline, and another candidate doesn't, perhaps FN voters might like to use their vote to block that second candidate in the same way. Even if it's not their nation.
Of course overlapping jurisdiction exists here in a way it does not with the US and Canada. And so, I don't find this a great comparison.I'm not suggesting there's an overlap in jurisdiction in either case. I'm only suggesting that if one candidate favours environmental proetction, and one favours "drill baby, drill!" then some Canadians might choose to vote to block that second candidate, if they could, even if that means voting for another nation's government.
And that similarly, if one candidate in the Canadian election favours respecting treaty rights and not building a pipeline, and another candidate doesn't, perhaps FN voters might like to use their vote to block that second candidate in the same way. Even if it's not their nation.
Fair enough.
[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/afn-chief-now-says-he-ll-vote-in-federal-... national chief will vote after all.[/url]
Panel discussion in Saskatoon last night:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-panel-set-to-debate-fi...
'Nation To Nation': What Do Parties Think It Means?
https://jasminechorley.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/nation-to-nation-what-do...
"...There appear to be two explanations for the internationalist rhetoric of the NDP and LPC with respect to Indigenous peoples; Firstly, if the rhetoric is meant to court the 'Indigenous Vote', achieving this outcome will depend upon Indigenous voters who either do not recall the Trudeau and Chretien governments and have no knowledge of Canadian and International law, or prioritize other issues over sovereignty.
And we know that many who do prioritize sovereignty choose to abstain from voting in Canadian elections altogether. Second, the alternative explanation is that the rhetoric is not meant to court the 'Indigenous Vote'. I suspect this language is meant to appeal to Canadians..."
i voted Monday for a woman who is also First Nations NDP candidate. she believes Harper is a threat to her Nation's sovereignty and needs to be gone.
i voted Monday for a woman who is also First Nations NDP candidate. she believes Harper is a threat to her Nation's sovereignty and needs to be gone.
You can be proud of that vote
"Huge FN voter turnout in Alberta and Saskatchewan and things went full blue? Kind of makes you wonder what's the point?"
https://twitter.com/apihtawikosisan/status/656291516730724352
"Voting doesn't change a corrupt system which legalizes theft of Indigenous Ppl's lands & children: People themselves must want real change"
This thread certainly deserves a curtain call. So concerned were some of the NDP partisans here about voter disenfranchisement among First Nation communities possibly affecting the fortunes of their party, and yet voter participation went up by all indications, and it still didn't help them.
See #154 and #181 IMHO the campaign was less about getting votes than subverting indigenous sovereignties and demonstrating 'legitimization' of the usurpacious colonizer's competing jurisdiction.
Exactly.
Despite the sovereignty claims (which democrats have to accept), a lot of people responded to the Assembly of First Nations call to vote this time. There are now 10 indigenous MPs, the most ever. The First Nations vote was clearly up, as shown by such things as Elections Canada running out of ballots on some reserves (see APTN for details). The AFN can call its campaign to get out the First Nations vote a quialified success - and we see things like the election of Georgina Jolibois in northern Sask as the result of this shift. I expect Jody Wilson-Raybould to be a strong voice in cabinet for indigenous rights.
"Implicit in the exercise of the right to vote is consent to be governed by the election winner..."
https://twitter.com/1mohawklawyer/status/1152027678012129281
So when Mohawk Lawyer goes into court and argues a case, is he consenting to be governed by the judge's decision?
So when Mohawk Lawyer goes into court and argues a case, is he consenting to be governed by the judge's decision?
That is our law. When the lawyer for the Ts'peten Defenders at Gustafsen Lake went into court and argued that the court's authority was non-existent because the land had never been ceded to the Crown he was charged with contempt of court and disbarred.
That is our law. When the lawyer for the Ts'peten Defenders at Gustafsen Lake went into court and argued that the court's authority was non-existent because the land had never been ceded to the Crown he was charged with contempt of court and disbarred.
So in other words the judge that charged him with contempt acted as an imperialist servant!
Does this judge have a name? He/she should be shamed!
The BC judge presiding was Nick Friesen of the BC Provincial Court sitting in 100 Mile House. On Friday September 15, 1995, Bruce Clark, the lawyer representing the Tspeten Defenders of Gustafsen Lake, on bail applications, encountered a locked courtroom, (something unseen since Magna Carta) and was told he no longer had status to represent his clients. According to the Crown under advisement from the BC Law Society, they had been allocated other duty counsel and he would not be heard.
When he did manage to enter the courtroom and demanded to hear verification from his clients that they had freely chosen alternative counsel and to address the court on its lack of jurisdiction, (They had not.), he was assaulted by sheriffs at the counsel table at the instigation of the bench, cited for contempt and a compulsory 30 day 'psychiatric examination' ordered. When, several weeks later he was returned to Friesen J having been found mentally sound and logical, Friesen sat on his own contempt citation and found Clark guilty.
Upon the instructions of his clients fearing for his safety, Clark and his family fled to Europe and returned some months later in time for the criminal trial of his clients where he was again not permitted to represent them, but instead had to be subpoened by them while serving Friesen J's jail sentence to give his expert evidence on the law, which he did as a criminal prisoner wearing Guantanamo orange in a special 'anti-terrorist' Surrey courtroom behind a bombproof, glass curtain, just in case it wasn't obvious that, as stated by the BC RCMP Media liason, 'these people threaten the very legal foundations Canada rests upon.'
And indeed they did/do.
Subsequently, high ranking RCMP statements disclosed during the main Gustafsen trial revealed a 'smear and disinformation' campaign against Clark. The RCMP Commander of Gustafsen Lake, who had earlier publicly declared the Secwepemc Sundancers 'fanatics and terrorists who simply want to make war for some reason', was reported also to have told other officers he wanted to 'kill this Clark, smear the prick and everyone associated with him.'
Bruce Clark was disbarred by the Upper Canada Law Society as 'ungovernable' in 1999. In 2016 he was honoured by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association Award for 'the enormity of his contributions exposing the injustice of the Canadian legal system's violation of aboriginal land rights and the painful price paid by himself, his family and his clients.' His legal arguments on behalf of Indigenous sovereignty, being settled and impregnable, have yet to be addressed by any Canadian court.
Above the Law 1/2: Deception at Gustafsen Lake
Apologies for this thread drift. There is further information on Gustafsen Lake in other threads including :
http://rabble.ca/babble/western-provinces/gustafsen-lake-miracle
and further information/articles on Dr Bruce Clark @
https://dissidentvoice.org/author/bruceclark/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Allan_Clark
Indigenous nationals who believe Canada's jurisdiction over themselves and their land is fraudulent and genocidal, accordingly, have in many cases chosen not to vote for or legitimize political candidates that represent an illegal settler-state regime of a usurping invader.
Why Haudenosaunee Won't Be Voting in the Federal Election This October
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/two-row-wampum-haudenosaunee-voting-e...
"While efforts were made during the last federal election to get Indigenous peoples across Canada to 'rock the vote', few Haudenosaunee went out to the polls. 'The right and left wings belong to the same colonial bird that shits on us. Why would you vote in something that continually oppresses us...?"
Good questions. The normalization of Vichy occupation rule is still very much contested.
I hope people who do not want to make a choice of Candidates consider going and refusing a ballot. This is counted and gets more attention than not showing up at all.
I also hope that more Indigenous people get elected and a do-not-vote campaign sounds counter productive.
If an indigenous person is a sovereignist then voting in a settler election would be a denial of their beliefs. I am hoping that given the Liberals fight with the Human Rights tribunal and the NDP's strong candidates they will win over many First Nations communities that last time got sucked in by Trudeau's lies. I am not sure how many ridings it is but there are certainly a fair number where the indigenous population is large enough to swing an election.
If as is contended, the non-native governments did not and do not possess the authority or lawful jurisdiction over unceded Indigenous territory, then neither did/do they possess the authority to constitute political parties to contest political representation over them. Whether NDP, Lib, Green or CON and no matter how many may be persuaded to participate in a vichy regime created by and for the Canadian colonizer. It is wrong. Arguably it is also wrong for the settlers to participate in what is clearly and obviously a political process that enables and legitimizes an illegal occupation. Sorry, there's no easy 'politically correct' avoidance of this fundamental problem. Canadian MPs can no more 'represent' the Secwepemc or Mohawk than they can the Italians or the Greeks.
If an indigenous person is a sovereignist then voting in a settler election would be a denial of their beliefs.
Absolutely not. They can determine their own beliefs and what is, or is not, a denial of them. That is not up to some white man to instruct them on.
They have the right to vote in federal elections and certainly, regardless of what they want in the future, their communities have needs that they have a right to advocate for at the ballot box. They have every right to reject Canada AND vote in an election for the candidate who would serve their interests the closest. -- Or to decide to boycott if they think that is a stronger message.
They have this right on account of the power of the Canadian state over their land and peoples- whether or not they agree with that power being there.
Your logic suggests that people in Quebec who want a distinct country do not have the right to vote in federal elections either or that people in Northern Ireland do not have a right to vote for a candidate of their choosing in British elections if they do not agree with NI being a part of Britain. They have a right to boycott, elect an MP who will not take a seat, or one who will to support in whatever way possible their view on sessession, or one who will advocate for other political priorities they have.
It. Is. Not. Up. To. You.
Your comment is shockingly paternalistic coming from someone who likes to lecture others about imperialism.
If as is contended, the non-native governments did not and do not possess the authority or lawful jurisdiction over unceded Indigenous territory, then neither did/do they possess the authority to constitute political parties to contest political representation over them. Whether NDP, Lib, Green or CON and no matter how many may be persuaded to participate in a vichy regime created by and for the Canadian colonizer. It is wrong. Arguably it is also wrong for the settlers to participate in what is clearly and obviously a political process that enables and legitimizes an illegal occupation. Sorry, there's no easy 'politically correct' avoidance of this fundamental problem. Canadian MPs can no more 'represent' the Secwepemc or Mohawk than they can the Italians or the Greeks.
No. People have the right to decide personally and the decision to vote - or not - is not yours to interpret. See my comment to Kropotkin. You simply do not get the right to tell others what is or is not consistent with their beliefs or what is or is not wrong. Not ever. You have a right to your beliefs -- and that is it.
People who have been fucked over by Canada and who live in this country have the right to use whatever damn lever they choose to improve their situation or express their concern based on their individual beliefs -- not those of people who want everyone not to vote or people who want their own views advanced, not their leaders, not some white men who think their principles are more important than other people's rights, not political activists, not writers at rabble.
Get the frig over yourselves. You can hope for whatever you want. You can even suggest and advocate. But you do not get to say - not without ccriticism - that what people do with their own personal voting right is wrong or a denial of their beliefs.
This is no more right for you to do than it is for someone to tell you that you have to vote if you do not want to.
Start to respect other people's rights and understand where their rights and your opinions end.
BTW - the same argument could be used against people in occupied land anywhere in the world. Israel? You guys talk about Palestinian rights from time to time. Do you want to say that they do not have the right to vote if they live in what has been annexed to Israel becuase they disagree with the occupation? How many Arab votes in the last Israeli election are you trying to deny the morality of? That would not fly there at all -- it would not fly on this site. Saying Indigenous people have fewer moral rights abut the excercise of their legal rights should not fly here either.
Nobody - not Indigenous or anyone else - should get to decide whether a person legally presented with a ballot has a moral obligation becuase of their beliefs to refuse to use it any more than anyone here has the right to lecture them that they must use it.
The hypocrisy on this site is really stunning as it comes from those who profess so much that they do not actually live up to.
