‘First Nations have to be conquered’ comment by South Island Conservative candidate draws criticism

[u/green_tory]

https://cheknews.ca/first-nations-have-to-be-conquered-comment-by-south-island-conservative-candidate-draws-criticism-1353821/

[u/AutoModerator]

In order to comment in this thread, you must have a minimum karma in the subreddit, and have your flair set. Top-level comments must meet a minimum word count.

We will be deploying enhanced moderation in this thread, meaning a stricter application of rules 3 and 5. All comments must relate to Canada and the story in some way. Discussion which does not relate to Canada will be removed. We hope this will help keep discussion respectful, substantive, and on topic.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
2. Be respectful.
3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.
4. Avoid direct advocacy.
5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.

9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

   Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/_DotBot_]

The headline is very dishonest, and the criticism is disingenuous.

Read the article.

“Hicks then asks if he can finish his sentence, and the moderator says he can.”

“In law, we have to conquer or sign a treaty with the First Nations. We just arrived, we settled in, and we didn’t do any of it. And that’s why we have to have these treaties and we’re going to get them.”

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/gdog1000000 → u/_DotBot_]

Ironically a very liberal take on the situation, recognizing the illegality of the current situation and the mandate of creating some sort of legal solution which provides legitimacy.

The US openly states it conquered the lands it occupies, crushing indigenous rights in a very American style. Canada likes to say we’re different, and the Canadian mechanism for that is treaties. If indeed this was his intent, and the mic cutting off was just a very awkward moment, then it’s a fair and reasonable answer. Modern treaties have been quite successful in some cases, less so in others.

That being said, anyone who thinks the dumpster fire that is the current BC Conservatives is going to succeed in treaty negotiation should give their head a shake. It takes more than words to do such a thing, it takes sincerity, a lot of work, and strong bargaining skills. None of these things are things that the BC Conservatives have.

[u/HotterRod → u/gdog1000000]

The US openly states it conquered the lands it occupies, crushing indigenous rights in a very American style.

Source? Unlike Canada, the US negotiated treaties for almost all their territory. They were often negotiated at the end of a barrel of a gun, but at least there's a transfer of title in writing.

And the result is that there is 10x as much reservation land per capita than in Canada. Canadians just have a national myth that we treat Indigenous people better.

[u/gdog1000000 → u/HotterRod]

The US doesn’t engage in modern treaty making, and has basically completely violated most of their old treaties.

You just described conquering in the second half of your first paragraph. Seems we agree on conquering being the basis of American belief in the subject, that a treaty signed at the end of a gun is a legitimate one in their eyes.

I agree it’s largely a myth historically speaking, but it is one which has embedded itself into the Canadian idea of what is right. Thus it has guided relations between provincial/federal governments and Indigenous peoples for the last 50 or so years. Modern treaty is viewed as legitimate, and that is what this candidate is getting at.

Edit: Had to edit mine as the above comment was edited, something I said no longer referenced the previous comment properly.

[u/yaxyakalagalis → u/gdog1000000]

The Canadian mechanism for that was starvation, the pass system, making cultures illegal, residential schools, eugenics programs and much much more.

Just being slaughtered might have been better, but the USA had residential schools too.

[u/gdog1000000 → u/yaxyakalagalis]

I agree of course, but I was referring to the modern mechanism and how Canada approaches modern relations, particularly in the Section 35 era.

I did not intend for my comment to be taken as a defence of Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples. I merely intended to explain what the candidate was referring to and the basis behind it, which I was surprised to see considering the inflammatory headline.

[u/janisjoplinenjoyer → u/_DotBot_]

”It’s all centred on getting the economy going, and it’s not a sacrifice by the First Nations, the First Nations have to be conquered,” Hicks says in the clip, before getting cut off by the moderator.”

I’m fascinated by your insistence that there’s dishonesty and disingenuousness at play here, though. It’s almost like you recognize that this is damaging and the wider public is not on board with you and your friends’ view of Indigenous people.

[u/_DotBot_ → u/janisjoplinenjoyer]

It is dishonest to cut someone off, not let them finish, and then be outraged about an incomplete sentence.

Most Canadians don’t believe in conquest.

However many Canadians, off Reddit, would agree that reconciliation has gone too far and Canada needs to discuss constitutional change to conclude it once and for all.

Reconciliation is increasingly becoming very unpopular. That doesn’t mean we want conquest. It means we want to put an end to the lunacy.

We can’t even build a swimming pool in Vancouver without the local nations demanding a payment.

If we were to hold an honest pan Canadian discussion about reconciliation, I think the pro-reconciliation side would quickly find out that they don’t have nearly as much support as they think.

[u/Miserable-Lizard → u/_DotBot_]

When people speak for Canadians by saying many Canadians with no data source shows you are trying to control the narrative.

Also the pool is because of a land claim. I think most Canadians believe in property rights. do you?

What are your thoughts of governments like in Alberta restricting solar on farmers own property?

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/_DotBot_]

We can’t even build a swimming pool in Vancouver without the local nations demanding a payment.

From what I can tell, this is not what happened. The property owners unexpectedly hit an archaeological site, which halted construction. Owners are responsible for making sure any projects do not negatively affect certain things, including archeological sites. The premier admitted those laws are not working very well and need some changing. So, First Nation's involvement in personal property development is not a thing like it's implied here.

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/protecting-and-respecting-musqueam-heritage-resources.aspx

https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/homeowner-charged-200k-in-sacred-site-costs-under-law-premier-admits-isnt-working/

Edit: It's a different pool. Added some context below, too.

If we were to hold an honest pan Canadian discussion about reconciliation, I think the pro-reconciliation side would quickly find out that they don’t have nearly as much support as they think.

I don't think many people are too focused on it outside of BC where it has become a major culture war issue. *Reconciliation generally polls as a low-priority issue in most public opinion polling, so there does not seem to be many Canadians thinking about it too heavily.

However, the BC Conservatives have heavily exploited uncertainty and a lack of understanding of Indigenous rights and court cases revolving around Indigenous title and their implications for private property. For example, Caroline Elliot, the former BC Conservative leadership candidate, who's also running in this election, has written several highly inflammatory pieces on reconciliation in BC. So, largely, I blame the BC Conservative Party for exploiting the situation and some people's lack of understanding of the issues for the rise of anti-reconciliation sentiment in BC.

[u/_DotBot_ → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

Is this an AI response?

The pool I’m referring to the Vancouver Aquatic Centre as per a story that came out yesterday.

The city can’t build a bigger pool because the local nations demand payment.

[u/Miserable-Lizard → u/_DotBot_]

That is a lie, it's because of land claims do you support property rights? Why are you trying to make it sound like it's all about money?

People that own land usually ask for payment or rent.

“The province owns the lands there and the province refuses to allow us to expand the footprint, mainly because they haven’t settled up land claims with the First Nations on this very sensitive foreshore land,” Digby said in an interview with Global News Wednesday.

https://globalnews.ca/news/12103103/vancouver-aquatic-centre-rebuild-first-nations-land-claim-issue/

[u/_DotBot_ → u/Miserable-Lizard]

Did you read the article you posted?

It’s literally said it’s about money, there’s a quote from the Chief:

“According to Sparrow, the province was proposing to lease the land to the City of Vancouver for as little as $1.
“If they lease it for a dollar, what’s our accommodation, 3 cents?” said Sparrow. “I keep stressing that the Crown has a duty to consult and accommodate us.””

And no the First Nation doesn’t own this land in question, and nor should they.

I support property rights that are accountable to a democratically elected legislature which protects those rights in exchange for taxation.

I don’t believe Aboriginal title should exist. Want land? Can have it with the same rights and obligations as everyone else, not a Frankenstein bundle of rights that never stops evolving.

[u/Miserable-Lizard → u/_DotBot_]

They have a land claim

You thinkt think the headline of the article is wrong than immediately say it's because the first Nations want money. Why are you cutting off the whole story?

Thank you for finally saying you don't believe in first Nation land claims. You agree the law should be used to conquer frst Nations and take away their land claims. Be truthful and say it instead of first Nations want money, because that is not true. Also don't complain about the headline and than doing something about a story about first Nations to make them sound bad and fit your narrative

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/_DotBot_]

Is this an AI response?

No. I found another issue. I am not from BC, and I had to look up what you were talking about. Moreover, it's not as if your post was completely clear on what pool you were talking about, so forgive me for not knowing exactly what you were talking about.

The pool I’m referring to the Vancouver Aquatic Centre as per a story that came out yesterday.

As far as I can tell, outstanding land claims are affecting the decision. If you build something on land that others own, you have to compensate them. This is happening whether reconciliation exists or not. It would still play out in the courts. It sounds like the government expects to lose the case if they are just avoiding build there, but I couldn't say for sure.

The city can’t build a bigger pool because the local nations demand payment.

From I can tell, it's a land claim issue, which has yet to be settled. The city is deciding not to build there. So, your comment would appear to be a misleading assessment of what's occurring.

[u/yaxyakalagalis → u/_DotBot_]

Settling unextinguished Aboriginal Title issues isn't reconciliation it's Canadian law.

[u/ashkestar → u/_DotBot_]

My dude, you are doing the worst possible job defending this guy.

But that’s fine. Him getting cut off does nothing to change that the brunt of his argument, like yours, is ‘reconciliation has gone too far.’ That’s plenty damning on its own.

[u/KAYD3N1 → u/janisjoplinenjoyer]

You’re not saying his full sentence. He knew he was being cutoff for time and worded it wrongly. Now post his follow up after he was allowed to complete his sentence.

[u/awildstoryteller → u/KAYD3N1]

He said be conquered or sign a treaty. That is a threat is it not?

That is practically a declaration of war my man

[u/SendMagpiePics → u/_DotBot_]

”It’s all centred on getting the economy going, and it’s not a sacrifice by the First Nations, the First Nations have to be conquered,” Hicks says in the clip, before getting cut off by the moderator.”

There's no way this sentence that got cut off was pivoting to "treaties are important." What was he going to say? "Be conquered or made treaties with"? The full sentence after he was allowed to finish sounds like back peddling.

Even mentioning conquering people to say that making treaties with them would be better is at best weird and creepy. Like what's the sentiment here? That we can't conquer them so we're forced to make treaties? Vile

[u/KAYD3N1]

Totally false. He’s advocating getting treaties done that should have been done 100 years ago. He’s in my area, and he’s well known for working with indigenous groups and being pro-treaty.

Just a weak NDP attempt to smear him. Mod’s should remove this.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.