Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Nations Want Cellphone Revenue

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the the-great-spirit-wants-his-cut dept.

Peacenik45 writes "The CBC is reporting that First Nations in Manitoba want compensation for every cell phone signal that passes through their land because it violates their airspace. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs recently resolved to negotiate revenue sharing with Manitoba Telecom Services. Ovide Mercredi of the Grand Rapids First Nations says "When it comes to using airspace, it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do." This move may inspire First Nations in other provinces to follow suit."

5 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. It makes sense to me now by Night+Goat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No wonder the white man had such an easy time taking Indians' land. They're complete morons! This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. Stick to the casinos, those make sense and are a good business move.

  2. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The sad part is they will get it. Fucking bend over and take it up the ass country.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  3. Re:Not a problem... by Abuzar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh, did we mention that costs for OUR electricity, gasoline, wood, metal, use of our roads, telephone lines, groceries, banking services, medical services, fire services, and police services for natives on band land have doubled in price?
    No, your idea of ownership is preposterous. All of those resources, products, and services do not belong to you. You are living on land that is stolen and consuming products that are the end result of theft, slavery, and systemic oppression. First Nations would do well if the White Man got up and left to go back home where it came from.
  4. Re:Let's hope they win! by bdjacobson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In what way is property tax not the same as rent?



    You have the ability to choose precisely to whom you pay rent. You can avoid really bad landlords, as well as landlords who would use, or you find out are using, your rent moneys in ways abhorrent to you. You have no such choice with the government. Additionally, when you pay rent, you receive in return a service you desire and are actively attempting to obtain (a place to stay.) When you pay property taxes, you receive what the government decides to give you; you have little (or no) control over your end. For instance, it is one thing for a taxpayer to receive the "service" of schooling if there are children in the house; it is entirely another when there aren't. It is one thing to pay a tax for television transponders if you watch broadcast television. It is entirely another if you don't. It is one thing to see religions exempted from property tax, thus increasing what you must pay, if you support religion. But if you don't... And so on.



    So there are differences. The ability to do much about it, however, is questionable. The larger the area you live in, the less effective your vote is; likewise, the more you differ from the average citizen, the less powerful your vote is. Representative democracy as practiced in the US doesn't serve the minority except as an afterthought, or when cornered.

    Oh you're not receiving a service? How about the stable economy, thanks to being the number one military power, that enables you to take out a loan to pay for the property and house you're living on? You're welcome to go live in Africa and get invaded any time the neighbors feel like it.
  5. Re:Ovide Mercredi by kieran42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I saw a different punchline coming, involving the word "scall'p'd"