 |
| The end of my street the other day... |
Last night
X: A source has told me that many indigenous nations in British Columbia are not under a Canadian treaty. Therefore, there is some question on how much an indigenous nation should obey Canadian law. But, I do not support illegal protests.
DrRNM: That would seem strange, being as all groups, including nations, have submitted to Canadian sovereignty, in a sense. I would think there would be some kind of general agreement, but I will check into it. I am not an expert.
Today
DrRNM: Wikipedia
Cited
Historically only two treaties were signed with the First Nations of BC. The first of which was the Douglas Treaties, negotiated by Sir James Douglas with the native people of southern Vancouver Island from 1850-1854.[2] The second treaty, Treaty 8, signed in 1899 was part of the Numbered Treaties that were signed with First Nations outside of British Columbia.[3] British Columbian Treaty 8 signatories are located in the Peace River Country or the far North East of BC. For over nine decades no more treaties were signed with First Nations of BC; many Native people wished to negotiate treaties, but successive BC provincial governments refused until the 1990s.[4][5]
1."FAQ - Why, in this day and age, are treaties being negotiated in BC?". bctreaty.net. 2009. Archived from the original on May 7, 2009. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
2."Douglas Treaties: 1850-1854". Executive Council of British Columbia. 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
3."Numbered Treaty Overview". canadiana.org. 2009. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
4.Helena Kajlich (2002). "The British Columbia Treaty Referendum:An Appropriate Democratic Exercise?". University of New South Wales. Australasian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
5.Anthony J. Hall (March 2002). "The Denigration of A Great National Question". University of Lethbridge. Department of Native American Studies. Retrieved July 29, 2009
DrRNM: It appears your source is correct. Much of British Columbia does not feature formal treaties. I reason that Canada is the de facto (in fact, right or wrong) only sovereign nation in the territory and landmass known as Canada. Admittedly, there are other nations, First Nations and Quebec, but these are not sovereign nations. I am not making a statement on whether this fact is ethically and morally right or wrong, but within this territory and landmass, those with citizenship are Canadians. They have Canadian passports.
From a biblical Christian perspective, we are to follow Romans 13 and 1 Peter and Christians should obey governments. Even if Christian freedom of worship is denied somehow, I do not reason that there is a reasonable premise and conclusion that supports civil disruptions and/or civil war. Either from a biblical or secular perspective. The infrastructure, for example, of all nations within Canada, is significantly under the sovereignty of Canada. Again, people are Canadian citizens and benefit from such, even without treaties in each nation.
X: Was the American Revolution wrong? I do not support civil disruption, but believe that there are some indigenous arguments with merit.
Dr. RNM: For reasons outlined in regards to following law and order, I do not theologically believe the American Revolution was biblical. Yes, I agree that some indigenous arguments have merit. I am stating that law and order should be followed and laws obeyed (allowing for civil disobedience at extreme times, but not civil disruption). If a nation within Canada, by popular vote, has residents within, eligible to vote, wishing to be a separate sovereign nation, then it should pursue a 'yes' vote for separation and sovereignty within a referendum.
---
A truth about Rush: CBC
