From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:24:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.184026.774@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
|> Don A. Bowman (dbowman@shade) wrote:
|> >Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
|> >: News reports on the legal text of the Charlottetown Accord indicate
|> >: that there are going to be limitations on mobility rights, certainly
|> >: as it relates at least to aboriginal governments. 
|> >
|> >No it doesn't. It says that an Aboriginal self-government could limit who
|> >could move into a reserve. Could is different than will be.
|> 
|> Considering that there are over 600 bands, does it not seem extremely
|> likely that at least one of them is going to exercise this power?
|> 
|> At any rate, I would argue that the point is not whether any bands exercise
|> this power; the point is that they apparently can. Denying mobility rights
|> on the basis of race, which will most likely be the criterion used in at
|> least some cases, is not only morally suspect, but also sets a terrible,
|> terrible precedent. What is one supposed to say when the Aryan Nations
|> decides to set up a whites-only community and points to constitutionally
|> guaranteed aboriginal apartheid as its guiding light.

What exactly can the apparently do? It seems that anyone can limit who
moves onto their property. If I own a bank downtown, I can prohibit
camping on the premises. However, everything I do has to be
constitutional. Are aboriginal governments entitled by the constitution
(as it now stands or as it may well stand) to impose any restrictions
on the basis of race? As an example, they certainly may impose
restrictions on the basis of behavior.

Fundamentally, I am NOT against restricting people the chance to do
something on the basis of race alone. I do not blindly apply a principle
called "all races are equal". HOWEVER, I am against constraining
people from doing MOST things on the basis of race alone. Let's face it.
Race is special. There's a lot of special things in this universe that
have their special place. But a lot of things fit in a lot of places.
The idea is to do what is appropriate.

|> >: Further, the lack of a free market clause which allows for the free
|> >: movement of goods, services, and people, coupled with the
|> >: provincialization of labour market training with NO provisions for
|> >: provinces to recognize each other standards, raise the spectre
|> >: that provinces to will be able to restrict mobility also, and may
|> >: be more inclined to do so, to assert powers to restrict movement
|> >: similar to the powers given to another, the aboriginal, order of 
|> >: government.
|> >
|> >There is no provincialisation of labour training -- provinces MAY opt out.
|> >This doesn't mean that provinces WILL opt out.
|> 
|> Of course provinces will opt. It is the provinces who requested this
|> provision in the first place - I don't think they did this for the sport of
|> it.
|> 
|> >: What other collectivities other than aboriginals are going to
|> >: assert their collective right to limit the mobility of Canadians...
|> >: to protect their language, culture, and religion...perhaps the KKK.
|> >
|> >The deal ONLY says that Aboriginal governments can limit mobility rights into
|> >and off of a reserve. Since a reserve is private property, how is this
|> >different from you limiting me from coming into your home?
|> 
|> So you are saying that there is nothing wrong with a builder buying a chunk
|> of land, building a community on it, and only selling and/or renting homes
|> to, say, white people? After all, we are talking about private property
|> here.
|> 
|> As well, it seems to me that a reserve is not private property, it is the
|> base of a new 3rd order of government. Thus, the correct analogy, IMHO,
|> would be a province or municipality denying residency to, say, people of
|> Asian background - sort of like BC did during the war.

Let's look at it from the perspective of a reserve person. S/he is living
on land that is not anywhere near the size of a province. It is a place
where aboriginal people can gain a foothold. It's like private property.

Suppose that a group of people of race X start a community Y and make it a
habit to permit only others of race X to settle in Y. All they have to do
is to refuse to sell to people of a different race. It's their preference.
It's their turf. It all depends on who owns what land. If the streets are
private streets, X can control who gets on. Public streets are public
streets. What happens for a reserve? What is public and what is private?
 
|> Let's face facts, if the legal text is doing what the Vancouver Sun article
|> said it is doing, then the *best* that can be said about it is that a
|> serious double standard concerning race is being constitutionally
|> entrenched.

I see some reasons that people want to maintain their identity. It's a
kind of psychological reflex action. Something that says "Uh-oh, I could
be getting in over my head here." I don't think it's fair to say "Sink
or swim" to everyone, but people have to get their feet wet.

Everyone wants a piece of the action. They look out for number one.
They'll make whatever excuse they have to get in the game. They have to
wake up and smell the coffee. People screw around so much that trust is
wearing thin. 

Cultures are becoming junkheaps as people fear losing the ideas that
their ancestors have held. Some sorting has to be done. In computation,
sorting is one of the most frequent procedures. Things have to be sorted
according to value and garbage has to be identified. People can keep the
things that they like and if they are likable things, other people will
like them too. If they are not, then chuck it. Even if there was only
one society on earth, people would be forced to do this. The cultures
that people relate to have gone through periods of isolation, and even in
these periods changes occur. People should face the idea that time passes
and things can happen now that have not happened before. If people meet
people who have different ideas, there can be conflict, or understanding,
or compromise, or separation of ways, or creation of new ideas, or some
kind of action. We may meet someone playing a totally different ball
game. It may be hard to identify with this game. We feel out of place in
the game. We can't play every game. The games in Canada are not so hard
to join in. The games have different rules but they are mostly friendly
rules. People can choose the games they like and changes the games as
they want. We just have to score more goals, not bicker about what games
are being played. Let the people play. Help them play better. It's more
a race against time than a team combat. The rules change again and
again. If people like my/your game better than yours/mine, tough titty.

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

In the end, everyone wins.
      -- From a anti-drug or anti-chemical-abuse commercial of some sort.
Newsgroups: can.politics