Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:42:04 GMT

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.

>: 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 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.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics