The Shotgun Blog
« The Column the London Free Press Would Not Print |
| Saved at what cost? »
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
You can pry away my duck from my cold dead hands
I see my friend Will Goodon is back in the news:
A Métis hunter resumed his legal battle with the
Manitoba government Tuesday over the right of the Métis to hunt without
a provincial licence.
Will Goodon was charged two years ago, after he shot a duck without
a provincial licence. He possessed a Métis “harvester” card, which was
issued by the Manitoba Métis Federation, but the province has refused
to recognize those cards. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, alleging
that hunting is his birthright. (CBC)
I’ve written about him before:
In the end it doesn’t really matter if the court rules
against it. The metis will still continue hunting like they always have
- just a little more out of sight. (also see Cockroaches of Society)
Will and his family have been hunting in the same area for a hundred
years and have strong cultural ties to the land unlike myself who was
transplanted at a young age to northern Manitoba where of course I was
never able to experience the same thing.
Now here is where I confess…
In some greater sense the metis are the ultimate Canadian
libertarians or in a smaller form carry in their blood themes of
anarchy. The purest and untinged by the hand-me-out attitude adopted by
metis lobby groups such as the Manitoba Metis Federation
don’t care what the government and their laws stipulate. I can’t help
it if I come across as the blogosphere’s greatest hypocrite because it
is simply in the blood to defy government and defy any outside form of
authority outside of the typical catholicism (see Riel - Prophet of the New World).
We don’t care but… we need to fit in and because of that we
assimilate under the light. We stop at stop signs like everyone else
and we go when the light turns green. We fit into ’society’ fairly well
but the f-u stuff we typically keep it to ourselves. Some elements of
the culture are underground and don’t surface up into mainstream
Now here is where I confess some more…
When I fish, I fish without a licence because I don’t see it as
wrong and have always done it. When I hunt, I hunt without a license
because I don’t see it as wrong and have always done it. The government
element introduced into the metis culture tells us that this is wrong
and we know it. I know it. Will Goodon knew it.
Why? I don’t have the words to explain it. I don’t know why we carry
on this way in defiance of modern law. I sometimes see it as a game.
Come on government entities, come and and get me. Catch me if you can.
Note to government - I’ll die running before you ever lay a hand on me.
You’ll have to pry away my duck from my cold dead hands prior to taking
it away from me.
The duck doesn’t mean much but defying you does. I don’t know why that is but let us just say that it is so.
Will Goodon made some
mistakes. First of is that he wasn’t caught. He volunteered his duck to
the government entities and challenged them. Broken rule - when you
have a dead duck you hide it.
Second is that the challenge towed along by the Manitoba Metis Federation
seeks to impose cultural laws and engages the government entities to
seek further rights for a historically important, but of course the
encyclopedia dying minority (They don’t see us as the cockroaches we are).
Of course the government entities (and as much as you wish it doesn’t
matter what government entities) will pass it on to the next.
A battle that will be passed on in perpetuity and will eventually
accomplish nothing other than the government entities now realize that
most if not all metis hunt without government approval. The all seeing
eye gets wider and now somebody has to run a little faster next time.
Will Goodon my good friend - You should have taken the goddamn duck straight home and ate it. (c/p)
Posted by Darcey on October 24, 2006 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You can pry away my duck from my cold dead hands:
Darcey, what's with this Metis stuff. I spent my boyhood away out in the boonies and started hunting for the pot when I was 10. I was well into my 20s before I started to buy the occasional hunting licence, and I'm white bread to my toes. I broke the law and, if I had been caught, I or my parents would have been fined. I contend that the same rule should apply to Metis, and I hope that you agree.
Posted by: Zog | 2006-10-24 10:25:33 PM
Somebody help me here? I understand that an aboriginal person in Canada has specific rights etc. But they have to have a pretty well determined blood line….I think? Essentially aboriginals have to marry other aboriginals to maintain all of their treaty rights?
It appears however, that it is a lot easier to be declared Metis. As long as the Metis Nation accepts you, you self identify as a Metis, and you can prove that somewhere in the not too distant past you had an aboriginal ancestor, or Metis member, (http://www.metisnation.ca/who/definition.html), you would then get your Metis card.
If the above is correct? I would figure it should take about 3 – 10 generations before we are all Metis simply by the way people marry each other. My wife’s grandmother was, as was the nomenclature then, a full red blooded Indian. So if she asked she would be classed as Metis
So, can I hunt without a license now and save all the paperwork?
But seriously, will we not all be Metis in the future?
Posted by: Mike D | 2006-10-25 3:42:51 AM
Any law which treats so-called metis any different from H. Sapiens Sapiens in general is a racist law, therefore it should be struck from the statute books.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-10-25 5:08:03 AM
You are absolutely right.
There must be one set of laws in Canada, applicable to all, whether one is man or woman, white, black, red, or any other colour, whether of English, French, Native American, or any other extraction.
Unfortunately, Canada is filled with "racist" laws and regulations. (One glaring example is the separate taxpayer funded Catholic school system in Ontario.)
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 8:00:49 AM
For sure we're a screwed up nation or is it nations nowadays?
Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-25 8:30:51 AM
The point is that we're becoming Italianized. We used to have the English trust in government. Perhaps because we had a government we could trust.
We, like the Italians, have come to believe that the state is our enemy. It lies to us. We'll lie more and better. It steals from us. We'll steal more and better. After all, anything the state can do, private enterprise can do better.
Thanks Liberals. I hope Harper can change things but I suspect things are too far gone.
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-10-25 8:56:36 AM
Maybe someone here can help me out, with out the scary “White Man” would not the metis actually exist?
So in this test tube experiment, how much white do you add to how much native? Is it 1 part whit to 3 parts native, or vice versa, or 4 parts native to 9 parts white, can someone please help me out, because right now I think its as many parts possible to screw said parts taxpayer / government over, because its one big game of gimme gimme gimme, I’m special.
Posted by: william james | 2006-10-25 9:38:25 AM
The state IS the enemy:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."
We have a real problem when the collectivists dominate, like in Canada right now, when there is no major party committed to empowerment of the people.
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 9:55:39 AM
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | Oct 25, 2006 8:00:49 AM
Although I am not Catholic, I will defend the right of Catholics to operate their own school system.
In Alberta, we not only have public and Catholic school boards, we have home schooling and charter schools.
The reason it works is because, since education is about educating the student, the funding follows the student.
The parent then has the choice where he would like his child educated.
BTW, Catholic is not a race.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-25 10:09:49 AM
If the funding follows the student, that would be fine.
But it doesn't in Ontario. Only one separate group of people gets its school's funded by the tax payers and that is the Catholics.
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 10:18:59 AM
Darcey, all of us had ancestors who hunted and fished without licences way back in history.
All of us had ancestors who didn't pay taxes and lived ungoverned lives back in the mists of time.
Whether someone is an Indian or a half-breed Metis or any other race or race mix we should ALL be treated equally before the law and NO identity group should be favoured by any law if Canada is to remain a democracy.
I've got elk in the freezer right now, but I didn't break any laws to get it.
I'll tell you this, as long as Indians can 'harvest' where and what they want I'll never report a poacher because by definition a poacher can't be an Indian.
If one day there are no more fish or elk or moose or cariboo or geese THEN we will all be equal.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-10-25 10:21:03 AM
Then, the fault lies with Ontario's political culture, which cannot take such an easy step as to have funding follow the student.
You now have the knowledge. Use it wisely.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-25 10:34:06 AM
I have had "the knowledge" a long time. How about you?
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 10:40:28 AM
My heritage is from jolly old England.
Yet my grandfather and father both worked trap lines in central Manitoba to put food on the table.Where is this whiteman's special exemption from Canadian law based on historical tradition?
Oh yeah...it's only for certain races....
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-25 12:05:01 PM
Special treatment for groups based on ethnicity is "the Canadian way". "Multiculturalism" is its official name - the practice and promotion of group rights - usually at the expense of individual liberty. Our governments preach and practice an ideology that balkanizes the nation pitting one group against another while they all clamour for special consideration. This is hardly in accord with libertarian ideals.
Posted by: JR | 2006-10-25 12:28:51 PM
This whole issue stems from the unfortunate fact that Canada gives special rights to certain collectives, as opposed to equal rights for all individuals.
Which is a principle both conservatism and social democracy (e.g. the Liberals and the NDP) subscribe to.
It would be a better country if this party (un-)ruled: http://www.libertarian.ca/
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 12:32:28 PM
In Ontario, the municipal tax bill has three sections: lower tier (municipality), upper tier (county or region if applicable), and education. For residences, the property owner gets to choose which board gets funding. It can even be a split funding between multiple boards.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-10-25 2:42:56 PM
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | Oct 25, 2006 10:40:28 AM
If you had the knowledge, then what was the point of bringing up finding for Catholic school board?
I would fundamentally disagree that social democrats display any particular affinity to individual rights.
Instead, they try to equalize through taxation, a lesson they've learned from their brethren in socialist international.
Their main method for equalization is through economic redistribution. Once the populace cottons onto the game, they form victim groups so they justify why they are entitled to the money earned by others.
Or, haven't you been paying attention?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-25 2:53:47 PM
It's obvious none of you know what you're talking about. But please go ahead, it's entertaining.
Posted by: gabe | 2006-10-25 3:38:03 PM
The Ontario funding of Catholic schools is one (another) example of special collective rights and group think.
Social democrats (Liberals, Dippers), like conservatives, recognize the superiority of the state (collective) over the individual.
Whereas liberals (i.e. true liberals) see the state as the servant of the individuals.
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 5:05:25 PM
If the government can't issue hunting lisences, how can it practice any kind of conservation? How is that environmentally friendly? It seems to me that controlled hunting is such a minimal concession to environmental care that any future concesrns will only be hypocritical
Posted by: Pete E | 2006-10-25 7:34:21 PM
lets see, I had relatives killed in the first world war, two uncles killed in the second world war, my family goes back 100 years in canada and i have to obey the laws, and spent my life in the service of this country. but people that call themselves natives can break the laws when ever they feel like it. hmm, whats wrong with this picture, time to call out taliban jack to go talk to them. and before you all get to excited, some of my best friends in the army where native. On an unrelated note, love the new recruiting ads for the armed forces.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-10-25 8:05:41 PM
Does it really matter what your relatives did "for this country"? What's that got to do with you?
Same thing with Native Americans, what difference does it make that their forefathers has lived here longer than others? They haven't.
- Equal rights for everyone.
- Individual rights, not collective rights.
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-26 7:25:35 AM
"If the government can't issue hunting lisences, how can it practice any kind of conservation?"
The underlying problem, the one we all ignore, is that the state owns nearly all the land. Solution:
step 1: sell all the crown land, every last acre. Let groups like the Sierra Club buy the National parks. Let anyone buy including dirty furriners.
step 2: tax the land based on its market value without any exemptions of any kind for farmers, the Sierra Club or any other whiny interest group. Tax the dirty furriners more if you want and if you think we can get away with it.
step 3: let the landowners manage their own land.
Until then Robin, go ahead and poach the King's venison, I'll never turn you in. (King=nameless, faceless, bureaucrat with infinite power, little sense and a job for life, whose secondary, or perhaps tertiary real function is conservatism, the primary being self protection and perk increase)
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-10-26 9:57:14 AM
I fully agree. The state should not own land, and it should not run businesses. (Basically, 'the King' should be a mere administrator of common concerns, such as police, defence, and the courts.)
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-26 10:10:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.