@ns1rii: #مساء_الخير #اكسبلور #هاشتاق #تصميمي #fyp

N
N
Open In TikTok:
Region: SA
Saturday 26 September 2026 19:50:40 GMT
4862
352
3
40

Music

Download

Comments

m..w12
. :
ابداع اكسسبلور
2026-09-27 06:09:30
0
aroa_7777
﮼نقطــ•ــہ•·.·:•❥♪﮼ :
2026-09-27 04:20:43
0
aroa_7777
﮼نقطــ•ــہ•·.·:•❥♪﮼ :
2026-09-27 04:21:01
0
To see more videos from user @ns1rii, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew wants to abolish the Indian Act. Prime Minister Mark Carney says his government is open to discussing its future. And some Canadians are already celebrating. But here’s the question: Do they actually understand what abolishing the Indian Act would mean? In 1969, Pierre Trudeau’s government proposed abolishing the Indian Act through its controversial White Paper. First Nations leaders overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, arguing that it threatened their treaty rights, legal status, and distinct relationship with the Crown. Now, more than half a century later, an Indigenous premier is calling for the same legislation to be abolished. So what’s changed? And why might some of the people demanding an end to the Indian Act be surprised by what comes next? In this video, we examine the critical differences between Trudeau’s 1969 White Paper and Wab Kinew’s recent proposal, including: * Why First Nations opposed the White Paper. * Why abolishing the Indian Act doesn’t automatically eliminate Aboriginal and treaty rights. * What could happen to reserve lands, Indian status, and money held by the Crown for First Nations. * Why Indigenous self-determination must be central to any reform. * Why some assumptions about Indigenous rights and Alberta separatism miss the point entirely. The Indian Act is a colonial law. But abolishing colonial legislation is not the same thing as abolishing Indigenous rights. And replacing the Act without protecting existing legal arrangements could create serious problems of its own. The real question isn’t simply whether Canada should abolish the Indian Act. It’s whether Canada is finally prepared to move beyond the colonial control that created it. 💬 What do you think? Should the Indian Act be abolished, reformed, or replaced with legislation developed and agreed upon by First Nations themselves? Let’s have a respectful, informed conversation. Further reading: Government of Canada — Indian Act (full legislation): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/ Government of Canada — Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 35): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html The Canadian Encyclopedia — The White Paper, 1969: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-white-paper-1969 Subscribe for more conversations about Canadian history, Indigenous rights, reconciliation, public policy, and the stories that deserve a closer look. #IndigenousTikTok #wabkinew #socialjustice #indianact #treatyrights
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew wants to abolish the Indian Act. Prime Minister Mark Carney says his government is open to discussing its future. And some Canadians are already celebrating. But here’s the question: Do they actually understand what abolishing the Indian Act would mean? In 1969, Pierre Trudeau’s government proposed abolishing the Indian Act through its controversial White Paper. First Nations leaders overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, arguing that it threatened their treaty rights, legal status, and distinct relationship with the Crown. Now, more than half a century later, an Indigenous premier is calling for the same legislation to be abolished. So what’s changed? And why might some of the people demanding an end to the Indian Act be surprised by what comes next? In this video, we examine the critical differences between Trudeau’s 1969 White Paper and Wab Kinew’s recent proposal, including: * Why First Nations opposed the White Paper. * Why abolishing the Indian Act doesn’t automatically eliminate Aboriginal and treaty rights. * What could happen to reserve lands, Indian status, and money held by the Crown for First Nations. * Why Indigenous self-determination must be central to any reform. * Why some assumptions about Indigenous rights and Alberta separatism miss the point entirely. The Indian Act is a colonial law. But abolishing colonial legislation is not the same thing as abolishing Indigenous rights. And replacing the Act without protecting existing legal arrangements could create serious problems of its own. The real question isn’t simply whether Canada should abolish the Indian Act. It’s whether Canada is finally prepared to move beyond the colonial control that created it. 💬 What do you think? Should the Indian Act be abolished, reformed, or replaced with legislation developed and agreed upon by First Nations themselves? Let’s have a respectful, informed conversation. Further reading: Government of Canada — Indian Act (full legislation): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/ Government of Canada — Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 35): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html The Canadian Encyclopedia — The White Paper, 1969: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-white-paper-1969 Subscribe for more conversations about Canadian history, Indigenous rights, reconciliation, public policy, and the stories that deserve a closer look. #IndigenousTikTok #wabkinew #socialjustice #indianact #treatyrights

About