2 Calgary brothers charged with sex attack on teen

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Drastically more natives get sent to prison than any other demographic.

This means that the likelihood of preferential sentencing in the regular court system actually existing in the manner which you are saying, is not very high.

That said, there are alternative native sentencing options that exist, however, unless I am misreading, or it has been misreported, they were not involved in why these people were on the street.

Well, there could be a whole host of reasons why a higher percentage per capita of natives get incarcerated than any other.

You're making the argument that there are alternative sentencing options that arent preferential based on their demographic?

[1stLand]

I don't buy the "we stole their land" argument anymore.

In Canada for instance, what was the estimated population of aboriginals before settlers arrived? 50,000 people?
Aboriginals are predominately nomadic people, with no permanent settlements.
How could 50,000 own or have rights to a land mass the size of Canada?

Aborginals themselves are immigrants from Asia and arrived tens of thousands of years ago.

Let them have their reserves, but it's time to cut them off from money and assistance altogether.

Canada is a free country. They can get jobs off the reserve and pay taxes like regular Canadians.

Giving them hand-outs is a form of racism in and of itself, implying they are incapable of supporting themselves.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, there could be a whole host of reasons why a higher percentage per capita of natives get incarcerated than any other.

You're making the argument that there are alternative sentencing options that arent preferential based on their demographic?

No, I am saying that those had nothing to do with these people, although they do exist. In those cases, there is typically no parole, jail time, etc, so I am also assuming they have nothing to do with the cases you witnessed preferential sentencing in, either. If I am wrong on that point, feel free to correct me.

There are many reasons that Natives are incarcerated at a higher rate than other demographics, but having preferential sentencing isn't one of them.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

Canada is a free country. They can get jobs off the reserve and pay taxes like regular Canadians.

Giving them hand-outs is a form of racism in and of itself, implying they are incapable of supporting themselves.

I love that you pulled yourself up by your boot straps and did absolutely everything without ANY help from anyone in the world.

What handouts did you get growing up?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rathji

No, I am saying that those had nothing to do with these people, although they do exist. In those cases, there is typically no parole, jail time, etc, so I am also assuming they have nothing to do with the cases you witnessed preferential sentencing in, either. If I am wrong on that point, feel free to correct me.

There are many reasons that Natives are incarcerated at a higher rate than other demographics, but having preferential sentencing isn't one of them.

Hm. Well, I'm saying that they tend to get softer sentencing/less jail time/more lenient bail, etc.

So, I think we agree?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

I don't buy the "we stole their land" argument anymore.

In Canada for instance, what was the estimated population of aboriginals before settlers arrived? 50,000 people?
Aboriginals are predominately nomadic people, with no permanent settlements.
How could 50,000 own or have rights to a land mass the size of Canada?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...f_the_Americas

The population figure for Indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).

The Aboriginal population of Canada during the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000[8] and two million,[9] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

I don't buy the "we stole their land" argument anymore.

In Canada for instance, what was the estimated population of aboriginals before settlers arrived? 50,000 people?
Aboriginals are predominately nomadic people, with no permanent settlements.
How could 50,000 own or have rights to a land mass the size of Canada?

Aborginals themselves are immigrants from Asia and arrived tens of thousands of years ago.

Let them have their reserves, but it's time to cut them off from money and assistance altogether.

Canada is a free country. They can get jobs off the reserve and pay taxes like regular Canadians.

Giving them hand-outs is a form of racism in and of itself, implying they are incapable of supporting themselves.

It's an interesting idea, but simply "tearing up contracts because one side doesn't like them anymore" sounds kind of dangerous to me.

My family has had an agreement with a Native band since the 30's. I wouldn't be too pumped if one day they decided to tear it up it because they didn't like it anymore, and took our cabin and told us to get lost.

The Canadian government signed treaties. They can't just be tossed in the garbage.

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's an interesting idea, but simply "tearing up contracts because one side doesn't like them anymore" sounds kind of dangerous to me.

My family has had an agreement with a Native band since the 30's. I wouldn't be too pumped if one day they decided to tear it up it because they didn't like it anymore, and took our cabin and told us to get lost.

The Canadian government signed treaties. They can't just be tossed in the garbage.

I am not saying we should tear up treaties, and forgive me as my knowledge of treatise is non-existent.

What I was referring to is the amount of money The Government provides to subsidize these communities - should be tapered off and cut off eventually.

Is there provisions in treatise relating to government assistance?

In 300 years will the government still be sustaining reserves? What kind of future has that provided Aboriginals for the past 100 years?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hm. Well, I'm saying that they tend to get softer sentencing/less jail time/more lenient bail, etc.

So, I think we agree?

In regards to the regular criminal justice system, we do not agree.

Alternative courts for natives are not for offenses which typically require any serious jail time, and are not relevant to this case. I also suspect they have nothing to do with any sentencing you have personally witnessed, but you could correct me if I was wrong on that account.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rathji

In regards to the regular criminal justice system, we do not agree.

Alternative courts for natives are not for offenses which typically require any serious jail time, and are not relevant to this case. I also suspect they have nothing to do with any sentencing you have personally witnessed, but you could correct me if I was wrong on that account.

I cant correct you as I have no factual evidence other than several incidents in which I've been personally involved and the inconsistency of sentencing.

[WhiteTiger]

Yeah, I kinda wonder about some of these treaties, too. Did they not say "We will buy this land for X amount" with X being a finite amount? Or did they just say "We'll buy your land and take care of you for ever and ever in eternum."

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's an interesting idea, but simply "tearing up contracts because one side doesn't like them anymore" sounds kind of dangerous to me.

My family has had an agreement with a Native band since the 30's. I wouldn't be too pumped if one day they decided to tear it up it because they didn't like it anymore, and took our cabin and told us to get lost.

The Canadian government signed treaties. They can't just be tossed in the garbage.

It happens. My family had a cabin in Montana (St Marys lake) that was on native land with a 100yr lease. In the 90's it went to a 50 yr lease. Then all of a sudden 10 yrs. Then it was GTFO. There was a whole community of lakefront property that was kicked off native land.

The USA is probably different, but I've seen it happen firsthand.

As far as the 2 "accused" are concerned, I really don't care WHAT race they are. If they are guilty they deserve to be sent to the gulag. As a father, I don't think I could go through that.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yeah, I kinda wonder about some of these treaties, too. Did they not say "We will buy this land for X amount" with X being a finite amount? Or did they just say "We'll buy your land and take care of you for ever and ever in eternum."

Yeah, it defies logic to have these go on in perpetuity.

[rubecube]

Did this even happen on a reservation?

[tete]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yeah, I kinda wonder about some of these treaties, too. Did they not say "We will buy this land for X amount" with X being a finite amount? Or did they just say "We'll buy your land and take care of you for ever and ever in eternum."

Here's a brief summary of the terms to the early numbered treaties:

http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/specifi...verview_e.html

In return for giving up their land rights, the Aboriginals received:

• Reserve lands to live on. Usually, just 600 square meters were provided to each family of five. However, in Treaties Three and Four only, the Aboriginals were able to successfully negotiate 2.5 square kilometers for each family of five.
• Cash, the amount of which differed between each treaty. However, the amount usually grew with each subsequent treaty as the Aboriginals' demands grew.
• An allowance for blankets and hunting/fishing tools.
• Farming assistance.
• Schools on reserve land, whenever desired by the Aboriginals.
• A census to keep track of how many Aboriginals there were in each band, mainly for financial compensation purposes.
• The right to hunt and fish on all ceded land not used for settlement, lumbering or mining. However, this was only promised in writing from Treaty Number Three onward.
• The right for the government to build public buildings, roads and other crucial pieces of infrastructure

In return for the aforementioned items, the Aboriginals had to:

• Promise they would keep the peace and maintain law and order.
• Never possess any liquor on their reserves. (The introduction of alcohol to the Aboriginals had led to instances of disorder.)

RE: the cash - for Treaty 1, the one I'm most familiar with - the cash payout was $5 per person. No inflation has been applied to this, so Treaty 1 aboriginals receive $5 a year still to this day.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Did this even happen on a reservation?

No!! It happened in Calgary. A girl was forcibly kidnapped from a bus stop, taken to a home, and raped repeatedly for hours.

Why has the discussion immediately turned to treaty rights?! Unbelievable.

I guess it's easier to argue about treaty rights and racism than to take an honest look at what the hell is happening in society to have young girls in Calgary being kidnapped off the street and assaulted for hours. They probably would've killed her when they got tired of using her so thank god she was abLE to escape.

[Peanut]

Actually I take that back. The ethnic background of the attackers could have played a role in this, which you could ultimately tie back to the treaty system and the state of native affairs in our country. And how two men came to be so angry and entitled as to abuse a girl like this could be tied back to endemic physical and sexual abuse, residential schools, substance abuse, etc. Those are problems plaguing some First Nations in our country.

But on the whole I don't know if ethnic background is relevant. It's not just native men perpetrating these types of crimes.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Peanut

No!! It happened in Calgary. A girl was forcibly kidnapped from a bus stop, taken to a home, and raped repeatedly for hours.

Why has the discussion immediately turned to treaty rights?! Unbelievable.

I guess it's easier to argue about treaty rights and racism than to take an honest look at what the hell is happening in society to have young girls in Calgary being kidnapped off the street and assaulted for hours. They probably would've killed her when they got tired of using her so thank god she was abLE to escape.

I think that's what people are trying to do here. Wrong or right, misplaced or not, people are trying to make sense out of what happened. We know pretty much nothing, other than the race of these two guys and that's what is being discussed right now. Ultimately, I don't think their race will have much/anything to do with what happened, but until we know more the discussion won't and can't be very substantive.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Actually I take that back. The ethnic background of the attackers could have played a role in this, which you could ultimately tie back to the treaty system and the state of native affairs in our country. And how two men came to be so angry and entitled as to abuse a girl like this could be tied back to endemic physical and sexual abuse, residential schools, substance abuse, etc. Those are problems plaguing some First Nations in our country.

But on the whole I don't know if ethnic background is relevant. It's not just native men perpetrating these types of crimes.

I agree more with your original post, Peanut. Sometimes the original reaction is the correct one. "Disgust" describes my reaction, and that was before we knew if the perpetrators were white, black, red, orange or purple.
The victim here is the young woman. End of story as far as I am concerned.

Edit: I will concede that if the story came out that the police rounded up the two native men without any evidence they were the perpetrators, then the race issue would be a real issue. I haven't heard anything that would suggest this is the case.

[ranchlandsselling]

What does this have to do with being First Nations? This kind of dead beat behaviour has been going on for centuries by losers of any colour. Angry and entitled? Probably just drunk losers - there's some in every city.