Debate partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek
Please visit the debate frequently! The winner of last weeks debate is @salmanbukhari54 with a respectable vote tally of 9 and @ailenepm has won the steem for contributing a vote to that winning post! Congratulations.
Week 12 debate topic - Broken Treaties
Two days ago Gerald Stanly was found not guilty in the death of Colten Boushie, a case that has sent shock waves throughout Canada. While this case is being seen as a white vs indian case, it raises some deep rooted relationship issues between the Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island and those of us who's ancestors came from other lands.
While the state believes that the Queen now has title to this land, acquired through treaties, conquest and Doctrine of Discovery, the Indigenous believe the treaties are peace treaties to share this land equally. Despite the differences of opinion on what the spirit of the treat is all about, the Crown has constantly violated the treaty through their own greed, contempt, bias and genocidal behaviours. That leads into this weeks question:
This weeks Debate Forum question: Despite the fact that the Federal Government and her subjects have apologized for their behaviour in the past, they continue to engage in violent behaviour. Does that behaviour constitute a failure to live up to the terms and conditions of the treaties and if so, does that invalidate the treaty due to non-performance, fraud and violence?
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST February 17, 2018. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- Out of the winning post, the voter on the bottom of the list with 100% upvote will receive all the Steem from the debate post, to encourage more voting!
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
- For this debate, I will disqualify those who fail to follow the spirit of the debate.
The spirit of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence. I am now on steemit.chat, user id @wwf. and discord (WWF#2870) If you want to private chat, you can contact me there.
Past debates
Week 11 - Pipe Lines - won by @salmanbukhari54
Week 10 - Trade Agreements - won by @salmanbukhari54
Week 9 - Legitimacy of Government - won by @dubem-eu
Week 8 - Guaranteed Income - won by @salmanbukhari54
Week 7 - Sectarianism & Dogma - won by @shai-hulud
Week 6 - Spirit vs Letter of the law - won by @shai-hulud
Week 5 - Indigenous Reconciliation - won by @dubem-eu
Week 4 - Net Neutrality - won by @skycae
Week 3 - Geoengineering - won by @cheneats
Week 2 - Government sponsored vaccination programs - won by @cheneats
Week 1 - Fixing government vs self-governance - won by @yulem
A treaty is basically a contract, and a peace treaty between two parties would rest upon neither side acting in violence to the other. It is obvious that the crown has engaged in violence and broken that contract so therefore the honourable tribes have a right to seek just and fair compensation for the harm caused by the crown for breach of contract - or respectfully request the crown to "GET OFF MY LAND".
However in reality, non of this will happen the crown is like a cancer and will only continue to get bigger and cause more harm to the tribes - the crown will continue to control the narrative and has shown repeatedly that it has no honour or integrity and any future treaty contract or other agreement will be nothing more than a pacification to save face with other countries.
The tribes will not be compensated by the crown and the crown will continue to trespass and not leave the land.
What can these peaceful tribes do about this trespass, Nothing... Apologising does not fix the problem or bring back those that have made the ultimate sacrifice - The crown will probably draw up another treaty to gloss over the harm they have already caused and force that treaty upon the tribes - receiving a standing ovation from the other countries for showing great kindness to the tribes - and that treaty will be broken before the ink dries.... they will continue in their domination and destruction of the tribes because they covet their lands.
i do not believe the crown owns the land at all my friend. The tribes can say that the land is theirs and has been for thousands of years - that will hold up in any court - i believe the crown will push to own the land in full allodium through the use of force, violence and coercion - in so doing removing all rights that the tribes have to their sovereignty.
In feudal law if you do not hold property ie land, then you are a simple serf and can not be a "freeman", that is why non Crown land in Scotland is being sold by the inch...
it's all about forcing the free into slavery, and the crown will take the land inch by inch if they can. Bankruptcy is a meaningless word to the crown / Vatican as wealth is not measured in fiat but in the land and people they own. The plan of domination by the crown is a complicated issue in itself, and this debate is about the Treaty violations committed by the Crown, so keeping this on topic i would disagree with the creation of any form of government by the tribes, and instead have a decentralised way of dealing with issues, that way no small group can sign away the rights of the many. Peace to you my friend :)
The crown have already used force and violence against the tribes and have already said the land belongs to them, just because the crown has said "it's mine", doesn't make it so - these actions have shown that they are nothing more than thugs.
There are no free men fighting in any army, all those that take up arms, are expendable slaves, and i respectfully disagree that wars are fought for freedom. Most wars are instigated by politicians/elite and are rooted in gaining resources, their greed is the driver for conflict, and is not the will of the people. [Also it is a way to remove Alpha males from the population decreasing the risk of an up-rising / civil war]
The queen holds the land in leu until an heir from god comes forth. She owns the people through words used by the people to describe themselves, ie British subject, human, person, citizen and honorary title like Mr. It has taken hundreds of years for the use of these words to become part of common everyday language, check out my brainwashed blog...
Even the best democratic government with honest intentions means that 49% of the people have no voice. And i respectfully disagree that you are governed by consent. Try and opt out... Try and say that their acts and statutes do not apply to you...Try and say you no longer wish to support their violence and wars by paying TAX. -
When you are aware that you are not human, then the complexity of the lie may fall into place - peace to you @baah, and thank you for the reply :)
Treaties are often made between a State and another State, State and Corporate bodies and or State and an individual. It is very obvious that no state goes into a treaty that is not gainful to her, now the measurement and understanding of the gain a state stand to get from an existing treaty probably after some time especially when it’s original initiators are no longer occupying big political offices becomes a big issue.
Due to greed and selfish reasons, governments tend to exploit and most time violet some part of treaties and when such happens they pretend to be ignorant of it, but if the other party raises an alarm over the violation, government may own up and apologize. Is the apology a sign that such violation will not happen again? Obviously No!
On whether it invalidates the treaty for violence, non-performance, fraud and violence, the answer is no because that is when and where the coercive attitudes of governments manifest fully as she will do everything possible including more violence to compel the other party to continue the pact unless a formal dissolution or modification of such treaty is agreed.
i respectfully disagree with your conclusion at this time. Could you please explain how the treaty/contract is not broken when all evidence and one of the parties believe the contract/treaty to be broken? irrespective of the crowns "attitude" and willingness to engage in further violence, the crown was the "promiser", and the tribes the "promisee" if the crown had any intention of honouring the treaty, there would be a history of compensating the tribes for the trespass by the crown. Contracts/treaties require both parties to be in agreement - As the "promisee" believes the "promiser" has failed in their obligation, then the Contract/treaty which binds the two party's requires that the promiser compensate the promisee - There is a lot of damning evidence to support the claim by the "promisee".
Yes many presume that violation of any of the terms of agreement means an outright cancellation but its not, until formally broken, any of the parties may continue laying claims against the other even when such party started or was involved in terms violation.
Thank you for your clarification, however you did not answer the question - yes the two parties to a contract/treaty can have disagreements, but a disagreement is not what this debate is about, it is about whether the violence committed by the crown makes the treaty null and void - Also how can the tribes formally nullify, break the treaty when the promiser i.e the crown is the one enforcing and controlling all of the courts that hold the power to officially say that it is broken? If your premise is correct, then the treaty can never be broken by the crown no matter what horrors and violence they unleash upon the tribes. Whilst ever the promiser is also the enforcer of the contract/treaty, it will always be a case of "do as i say not as i do, the rules i make don't apply to me" - You see this in most statute laws, it makes it quite clear that the crown is exempt from the statutes.
A simple example - punch your boss at work... and try and say that you have not broken your work contract by engaging in violence....You will find that your contract was void when the punch landed - and your employer will be more than happy to toss your ass to the kerb....
Now if your boss punches you at work, and you say that he has broken the work contract, he will laugh at you and tell you to get back to work or you will be either beaten further or he will have your ass thrown to the kerb....
The land belongs to the tribes - it is their land and they cannot and should not quit and walk away -
My response and initial postulation is based on general contract/treaty, but being specific using the situation you are pointing at, its long over due for the people involved to raise and formally invalidate the so called treaty as it no longer holds. The reason I believe in this arrangement is, going be what one party may loose in canceling this treaty formally, it may not willingly agree to this but when the public stand as one united people with one voice, the other party will start to recognize that the people has cancelled the dead treaty and may call for a round table discussion if its still willing to make peace.
My dear friend;
If I just read your response correctly, are are advocating for the idea that violence, non-performance and fraud is not grounds to invalidate a treaty, only because the bully will resort to more violence if we confront them on that fact. As such, those that have been violated by the bully should shut up or face the consequences of more violence.
This stand is, in itself, a violent and abusive position to take and violates the foundations of this debate forum. You are justifying the actions of the state and telling the other part to shut up. Not only that, but you are arguing that the only way to get out of the treaty is if both sides agree, which further traumatizes the victims of the abuse and violence and provides even more power and authority to the abuser.
This is an abhorrent and violent position to argue my friend. I am disqualifying you from the debate due to your violation of the spirit of this debate. I am also calling out the 21 individuals who voted for this argument and I question their own integrity regarding violence, bullying, coercion, fraud and non-performance.
Please I never wished to be misunderstood by my comment, Like I explained to @realtreebivvy my position is based on an ideal treaty/contraction situation, however your yesterday's post (https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/the-day-treaty-six-died) gave a more detailed and clearer explanation of the situation which is very obvious that the so called treaty in question is dead long long ago.
Am not in support of violence, bullying, coercion, fraud or non-performance from whoever against any people or group in any manner.
I'm not convinced my friend. Even if you were speaking from an ideal treaty / contract situation, your position still held the fact that the violence would NOT invalidate the agreement and your argument also suggested that the other party had no power to do anything about it.
This position is similar to an abused spouse trying to leave a relationship and the abuser having power over them to prevent the separation.
EVERYONE has a veto and to suggest otherwise is coercive, violent and abusive. Your argument supported that no veto exists and for anybody who has been on the receiving end of a violent relationship, they most likely would have a visceral reaction to your statements. Your words have power and I suggest you think twice about how you use them.
To argue such a position is, in fact, in support of the abuser. So your comments are now incongruent.
Nice
Upvoted ☝ Have a great day!
The apology of misleading public opinion only, and the practice of violence and non-adherence to treaties, indicates the continuation of their greed and injustice. I think it is useless to abide by treaties with them
@wwf
As we have learnt from history treaties are mostly not made in good faith. Powerful always tries to get maximum to his advantage and tries to exploit the weak opponent.
Peace treaties made in past between almost every state or government have ended in shame and violence. At point when one party is at upper hand he wants to get maximum out of the situation.
The capitalists came to America; the land of opportunities. They were more civilized then native Indians. In order to satisfy their own masses at home they made treaties to coexist but with passing time the colonizers grew in size and number with so many resources and power at their disposal. So treaties lost important for the colonizers so they started exploiting the treaties of coexistence.
My heart aches to see the plight of the poor natives, they are still lagging behind the developed citizens. They are greatly shrinking in numbers and want equality and justice.
The government must help the natives to end violence, greed and exploitation. The government should address the grievances of the natives and help them restore their confidence in the state. Give them a bit freedom and protect their land and given them stolen rights.
The state has the capacity to make things better by providing justice to the innocent. The sanity must prevail to end the culture of violence and mistreatment.
i disagree that the settlers were more civilised, the tribes had access to clean water, fresh air, animals in abundance for hunting, rivers full of fish no obligations to a feudal lord etc...the tribes existed in balance with nature for 12000 years. Then came the settlers that thought they could improve on what the tribes had...Now look at how things have turned out, poisoned air, dirty polluted water, contaminated land and empty fenced plains and poisoned rivers...all within a couple of hundred years....I agree that the tribes require help, however i disagree that they should turn to the government for that help. that would be like asking your jailer for a day out....and to be happy for it..... The best way to help the tribes in my opinion, would be for the government/crown to pack their bags and leave and compensate the tribes so that they can clean up the mess.
Well, my friend we can not turn the clock back. A lot of water has been passed under the bridge since then. What we can do is to make present beautiful and future secure.
Any one who doesn't cope with the changing circumstances perish. Its the law of nature no one can deny. You adept, you make change, you progress, you develop; you survive other wise you are no more on the competing forces of nature.
For generations the natives faced isolation of the developed world. When they were made contact they refused to change and cope with the modern world; most of them vanished.
The remaining can only survive if they can re-conciliate what is in hand. I am not saying that they should surrender but at least they should demand their rights within the treaties and constitution of the country.
I agree with you opinion that the settlers had polluted much of the natural environment and that should not have been taken place. But I politely disagree with your opinion that they were more civilized than the settlers because the natives had their own issues. They had their own fighting among tribes. They didn't know the advance ways of living, cultivating, ranging, ranching, farming etc.
The modern easy ways, like we are talking thousands of miles away, have taken the price in their own way. I respect your opinion.
Actually the native Americans taught the settlers how to farm their land. https://modernfarmer.com/2016/11/pilgrims-no-idea-farm-luckily-native-americans/
Yes there was fighting among tribes, but the whites have also been warring since time began and continued to inflict it on their arrival in America.
I appreciate your sharing of knowledge and good research. But despite their sound knowledge of farming they were outnumbered by the people carrying "guns, germs and steel." Please have a look at book of "Jared Diamond" or documentary by National Geographic Society if you have not already read or watched.
Does the carrying of guns, germs and steel make the invaders more civilised?
I am very much aware of what occurred historically, and still occurs in many ways. I was merely pointing out that the native Americans were also capable what we call civilised activities. I feel we run a risk of downgrading others races and cultures if we don't acknowledge we all have both faults and greatness. We could all do with being a bit humble in order to accept that our ways are not the only ways.
Well, my friend I appreciate your balanced approach. I like to add that "guns, germs and steel" wasn't about civilized or uncivilized. I thought to share a good research for your knowledge.
Neither I called anyone uncivilized nor tried to downgrade anyone's culture. I only said "more civilized" in the sense that they didn't know ADVANCED ways of the modern world. I used it in a broader sense.
In history hundreds of civilizations perished and new one emerged in a particular time at a particular place. My humble opinion was only to highlight that by not accepting change societies (be that any) perish.
I think I have the same opinion that we should try to compensate the loss and stop worrying about the past time. We should look into future and do good to them in present so that they can get maximum benefit from their ancestors' land.
I respect your opinion. But what I opined was that instead of aggressive approach they should solve the matter diplomatically. When you are weak then you must do something extraordinary to live rather to face "fox".
First and foremost, were the treaty agreements made in good faith? Or were they an end to a means? Were they made under duress? Did all parties understand the terms and conditions?
I am not a lawyer, but to me, when two or more parties agree to certain conditions and those conditions are broken by anyone of the parties, then you have a breach in the contract or agreement. So in my mind, the contract becomes null and void.
Apologizing and having said apology accepted, does not give permission to continue the fraud and violence, on either part. Two or three wrongs do not make it right.
I think the behavior is due to the greedy behavior of Crown, and this is the failure of the Crown as a ruler on the island of turtles resulting in violent behavior, such as humiliation, bias and genocide that threatens minorities so that a wave of retaliatory action will likely occur throughout Canada and of course the problem the deep-rooted relationship between Turtle Island Orang Asli and people from other lands will intensify so that this will result in large casualties
Although Crown does not have absolute power over Turtle Island, Turtle Island Queen has several prerogatives. His role as head of the Turtle Island state was limited to ceremonial and some authorities, such as the announcement of war, governing public servants, and fixed agreements at the level of his authority
surely this could invalidate the agreement because the crown is not performing, and committing fraud against Indigenous Peoples, the peace agreement to share this land equally is not done by the queen and the Federal Government
so this is the failure of the queen to lead a country
In essence, violent behavior of one party to a treaty constitutes a failure to live up to the terms and conditions of the treaties and thus can invalidate the treaty. Reading some background information about how Indigenous people of Canada enter into treaties with the Crown, the former see these treaties as sacred and the binding character of those is not found primarily in the legalistic language of the documents but rather on what were actually said during the agreement that were actually accompanied by ceremonial acts.
On the other hand, the Federal government see these treaties in accordance to the technicalities of the language and in some cases even abused them as in the case when they used violence against the other parties.
My take on this issue is that the Indigenous People must stand their ground and fight for these peace treaties so they can share equally their rights to the land. When the Crown is abusing their rights to these treaties, they must learn to battle them out legally. I've read that Supreme Court of Canada have already established jurisprudence that in cases of conflict between the treaties relating to Indigenous People, they should be construed liberally in favor of the Indigenous Groups. Also, it is an established rule internationally that any fraud/violence committed on the part of one party to the treaty is a valid ground to invalidate such treaty. Although the use of violence of most government entities have been left ignored and not acted upon in most cases, I think the only way for the Indigenous people to have an equal treatment to these treaties is to continue to battle them out, the instances may be hostile to their interests but that is their only way out to achieve their victory.
Just going to clear my comment and leave ye be.
Best of luck
Treaties are agreements signed to spell out the terms and conditions to which the contractual parties have consented to abide by them. The terms and conditions should include remedies or damages or compensation for the injured party with which the agreement was broken. Often times, this would end up being a court battle to determine the injured party and the party in breach. There are valid reasons as well as invalid ones that caused the breach. For example, non-performance is one whereby one or both contractual parties had not performed according to the agreement. There is also a frustration reason, whereby a party would not be able to perform due to circumstances beyond the parties control, such as by a force majeure. For instance, a seller would not be able to satisfy the sales agreement of a house on the closing date because the house was burnt down by a fire the night before. Within the agreement, there are also terms that allow both parties to amiably terminate the agreement upon their wish, with the stipulation that advance notices must be given. Therefore, there are reasons for broken agreements in spite of their validity or justification.
With respect to the current question of broken agreements by the Federal government, the crown should honor the consultation framework in place with the aboriginals. However, this framework is only a skeleton of what needs to be done in terms of consultation process and procedure, which are not or may not be detailed in the agreement. Without putting these process and procedure in policy and in practice, there is a chance for the contractual parties to not follow the rules. A failure to live up to the terms of the agreement should not invalidate the agreement. In fact, the agreement or treaty would be good evidence of the performance required by the parties, and if a party is in breach, in this case, could be the Federal government, then the injured party should demand compensation for a broken treaty. Invalidity of a treaty or a demand for performance of a treaty should be judged by a court, which ideally is independent of the government. A treaty is signed for a reason, and that reason is to govern the behavior and performance of the contractual parties. A treaty should not be invalidated lightly without seeking recompense for the injured party through a court or exposing the problematic behavior. If that were the case, it would be a disservice to the public and businesses that rely on contractual law to help them achieve a promise in exchange for another contracted in the agreement. We have laws in a civil society to help people and businesses, or in this case the government, to negotiate the terms and conditions in an agreement or treaty and to which the contractual parties are bound. These laws hold the contractual parties to their promise and provide compensation for the one who abides by the agreement or treaty, and failure to live up to the agreement by a party is certainly deemed to be in breach by the same.
This is the definition of a treaty:
a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state (2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
When there is negotiation for an agreement or treaty, it is not unilateral, meaning not one sided. By all means, one party may be in a stronger position to negotiate with terms and conditions apparently more favorable, but this does not mean it is unilateral nor does it mean one party dictates all the terms and conditions. If that were the case, then this one party can just dictate, there is no need for an agreement or treaty. This one party might just as well set all the rules and punish those who are not following them, and this is call dictatorship.
You can still have an agreement/treaty and one or both parties might not follow through with it, but that does not mean it is a unilateral agreement/treaty. Both parties did sign and agree to the terms and conditions in the beginning so there is bilateral agreement/treaty. Things can happen during the period of the treaty that lead a party to breach the terms, but that does not mean the agreement/treaty is unilateral. You might not be able to contest it (in court or otherwise) due to circumstances such as financing or other terms, but that does not mean the agreement was made unilaterally by one party alone defining the terms and conditions.
In terms of city agreement in your example, there are agreements such as restrictive covenants and caveats that tie to the land and not the person. The terms of these agreements will be transferred to the new owner as they run with the land. However, usually these agreements (i.e. restrictive covenants) might have term limits, which means the agreement with the city on the covenants may end in 40-50 years then the owner can have that agreement (i.e. restrictive covenant) discharged from the land. These matters are related to municipal laws and property laws.
we're not debating history here. It already happened and circumstances and feelings at that time would perhaps be different from today. Regardless, we are only observers, and also are not historians. I thought the point of this debate is on the existence of an agreement/treaty, whether it was breached by non-performance, violence, etc. to render it invalid. If so, how should it be remedied going forward. Are there any remedies available? Not here to re-hash feelings or circumstances of the people from ages ago when the treaty was formed. It's more important to deal with the present situation and find remedies to improve the relationship and/or uphold or renegotiate a settlement.
This is a brilliant contest you have going on here, bro. And i'd usually be quiet, if i wasn't so darn impressed with what's going on here.
The reason i'm writing this, you see, is not just to give out a compliment, but to point out a flaw in your decision system, and all such that works in a similar fashion--that is, the post with maximun number of upvotes win.
While, ideally, this system would be the best possible system, in that it not only takes away the decision from a centralized privileged person or group of persons, but that it actually gives that privilege to the whole community.
In practice, however, IT is even more flawed than the centralized privileged judging system.
There are numerous reasons to support this, the most pertinent being that it is almost too easy to rig. All you have to do is go to your group on Telegram, WhatsApp, or Discord, and request for upvotes with promises to return the favor at a future date. Trust me, i'd know, I belong to at least two of such groups. Now in a group with over a hundred members, all you need is just a quarter of the total member to vote you and you're guaranteed a sure win.
Another reason is the fact that most people do have multiple accounts--some people have three. Myself included. Imagine having five of me upvote a shitty argument like the one you have up there.
Like I said, I would be quiet, but i really love your blog and appreciate what you have going on, so, I advice consider changing the decision system--you might consider choosing a panel of judges, maybe from past winners, trusted friends etc.
Transparency is good, but shouldn't come at the cost of an even more insidious evil.
P.S: You probably don't want to know, and it probably doesn't change anything, but I just want you to know I was pushed to the expedient of having more than one account.
nice post sir
thanks for share