Housing Rights after Break up on Reserve Land
Wed, 2008-03-05 11:57
#1
remind
Housing Rights after Break up on Reserve Land
Wed, 2008-03-05 11:57
#2
remind
Strahl is asking that Bill (some letter) 47 be passed to state who gets the house on Reserve should there be a martial break up, I know nothing about this, nor how FN are perceiving this intrusion into their affairs by the government.
Does anyone know more about this and how FN are receiving it?
Wed, 2008-03-05 12:52
#3
rural - Francesca
I know this is an issue on FN as property laws on a FN are different and there are no provisions for FN in our divorce laws for FN properties.
This issue as often been cited in domestic violence circumstances as it relates to the potential for poverty should a woman leave.
I would certainly love to know more
Wed, 2008-03-05 18:57
#4
A press release by The Native Women's Association of Canada has been posted on their website at
[url=http://www.nwac-hq.org/en/index.html]web page[/url]
NWAC does not support this legislation. NWAC represents Aboriginal women both on and off-reserve. The organization has been in existence for many years, and has been held in equal standing with the Assembly of First Nations, the Metis National Council, and the Inuit Tapirisat as a national representative organization.
Wed, 2008-03-05 19:23
#5
saga
[i]“Property on reserve is not held in the same way as it is held in the rest of the country.
This is a reflection of the unique status of Aboriginal peoples in this country, which in
1982 was enshrined in Canada’s Constitution. Providing the same right as other Canadian
women hold does not take account of our unique situation and actually creates inequality
rather than protecting against it.”[/i]
This is seen as Harper's way of creating private property rights where collective rights exist, to break up the land.
Wed, 2008-03-05 22:55
#6
remind
quote:
Originally posted by zazzo:
[b]A press release by The Native Women's Association of Canada has been posted on their website at
[url=http://www.nwac-hq.org/en/index.html]web page[/url]NWAC does not support this legislation. NWAC represents Aboriginal women both on and off-reserve. The organization has been in existence for many years, and has been held in equal standing with the Assembly of First Nations, the Metis National Council, and the Inuit Tapirisat as a national representative organization.[/b]
Thanks zazzo, I watched Strahl carrying on about this today, it will be found in the Hansard page linked to in the Bill c484 thread I would imagine.
Tue, 2008-03-11 14:47
#7
Neither Strahl nor Harper will ever be able to step outside their narrow comprehensions to be able to distinguish problems from symptoms. But, we are at the mercy of the government’s continuous meddling by legislated solutions.
The Canadian government continues it's agenda of getting we Anishnabe to think as the larger society thinks. We're subject to the projections of others in much the same way as western nations continue to export their ideologies and values, and attempt to project their ways of thinking upon other nations of the world.
Western nations don't have a silver bullet in the principles of rights and democracy. And neither is Harper’s intent a silver bullet. That being to compel our communities to participate in the concept of property rights. Our communities have been forced to survive on smaller and smaller tracts of land. And because of our adoptions of these concepts of rights, conflicts arise as we struggle for what little “property” that these lands contain. If this bill passes, we’ll have new reasons to maintain or increase our levels of community conflict.
We don’t need to assume more western ways of doing things. We don’t need to incorporate more of the social woes that most rights based societies endure. We don’t need to install another of these social fallacies of equality. This bill seeks to create individualisms where partnerships should prevail.
[ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: sknguy ]
Tue, 2008-03-11 15:18
#8
Strahl has advocated for years that all native land should be turned into fee simple title just like all "other" Canadians. These guys just don't accept communal rights they only believe in the rights of individuals. They would like nothing better than to see housing developments etc on native land that can be purchased by anyone. A modern day land script scam that IMO will lead to the same place as it did with the Metis.