charter.rights

How's that court case coming?

Marriage IS NOT a determination for salvation. Otherwise Jesus would have married Mary Magdalene and the Pope would allow Priests to marry. Marriage is in fact a deterrent to enlightenment, being distracted from finding Truth.

The Bible is a book of man's laws. Once man took the books, edited them and decided to exclude quite a few, it took the Bible from God and made it the Church's law.

If you think you are referring to Haudenosaunee people, think again. There was an abundance of food available in almost all communities and as we are just finding out today, the "three sisters" - corn beans and squash - are complimentary nutritionally. Plus meet was only about 10-15% of their diet. Supplemented by amaranth grains and a wild assortment of fresh green in season the Haudenonsaunee had a better dietary system than we do today. Plus their stories tell of people who lived more than 150 years prior to contact. I even knew one gentleman in particular that lived till he was 96 years old, while all his life he smoked 2 packs of cigarettes (a pouch of rollies) a day, a pack of cigars a day and a pouch of pipe tobacco every couple of days. The community he is from regularly has people live until they are in their eighties, living largely off a traditional diet. On the other hand when the Europeans first arrived here they were lucky to make it to 40.....45 being extremely old age....Once they started eating the foods that were available here people began to lengthen their lifespan. If not for the "Indian Givers" the world would not have the wealth of foods we have today. As for wars one need only examine the violent British and European's history to see who has problems containing their violent nature. Hell, even your Christianity began in violence and celebrates each Easter. Of all the people in the world for time immemorial I would suggest that the Christians have been the most violent and malevolent anyone has ever experienced.

Or does he mean "special rights" as in what white anglo saxon males have enjoyed over the last 200 years?

You cannot discriminate on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." One cannot justify or reasonably limit gays and lesbians from marrying. However, in the case of the others you cited, we can reasonably limit the extent of the application of the Charter since those other circumstances would make it difficult to obtain confirmed consent to marry. In the case of "close familial relations" it is possible to marry a cousin or close relative as long as the parties have made an informed consent.....

Marriage is a legal institution and as such no one can discriminate against gays or lesbians for wanting to get married. The Charter prevents anyone from refusing to perform a marriage on a legal basis. Could there be a Charter right to maintain a religious position and refuse to marry gays in a Church on religious grounds? Quite possibly if it were challenged that outcome could be confirmed. However, the institution of marriage is legal for anyone to enter into and the use of the term "marriage" is not exclusive to the Church. IF the Church wants to maintain its intention to refuse to join gays together then they should be looking for a new term to do it with. The term "marriage" is a legal term that makes it open to anyone.

Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Robert Lovelace, Paula Sherman and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario - and - Native Women’s Association of Canada The appeal stems from an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008 in which the court made the following observations: [44] In the present case, as in Henco, the competing interests include the asserted aboriginal rights of the Algonquin First Nations, Frontenac’s private interest in pursuing its exploration plan in accordance with valid mining claims and agreements, and respect for the Crown property rights of Ontario. [45] And how are these interests to be effectively balanced? The answer has been clear for almost 20 years in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada – consultation, negotiation, accommodation, and ultimately, reconciliation of aboriginal rights and other important, but at times, conflicting interests: see R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388. The honour of the Crown requires that it act as a committed participant in the undoubtedly complex process of consultation and reconciliation: Haida Nation, Taku River and Mikisew Cree. [46] Having regard to the clear line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, from Sparrow to Mikisew, where constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are asserted, injunctions sought by private parties to protect their interests should only be granted where every effort has been made by the court to encourage consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation among the competing rights and interests. Such is the case even if the affected aboriginal communities choose not to fully participate in the injunction proceedings. [48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532. Since the appeal by Frontenac Ventures was denied by the Supreme Court, this ruling essentially legalizes protests and occupations as well as interference with private developers and citizens, in asserting native claims where full consultation and reconciliation has not taken place by the Crown.

Sure. However the Charter is not wrong. It is the basis of our social contract in Canada and provides the basis for all law. What Mr. Canada was implying is that he could take his feigned rights as permission to continue his racism and homophobia. He can't. It is against the law.

I see. You are stuck without words to respond with. As I also mentioned earlier the details and the actual ScoC report has not yet been published on the internet but comes from early December media reports where the SCoC was quoted.

I have cited the cases often. Lovelace v. Ontario. The law is an ass. It has the burden of proving guilt and when the law cannot carry the weight of fairness, equity and equality. When you read up on Lovelace v. Ontario, you'll understand that the Supreme Court of Canada just sanctioned the use of civil disobedience to prevent development on lands in which First Nations have an interest and the Crown has not properly consulted.

Absolutely it is. Civil disobedience is our democratic right to elicit changes in the justice system.

The Pope is wrong and clinging to an emotional argument. Life begins at birth. A fetus is not alive by legal definition until about a month or so after conception. Until then it is a woman's appendage. Even though you can make all the opinionated emotional arguments you want it still does not change the fact that abortion is legal and morally acceptable in Canada. If the Pope was right we would all be Catholic. And since I see him as just another elevated misfit Priest who protects pedophiles and adulterers I would suggest that he does not have the moral standing to decide what is publicly moral in any society.

That's just dumb. You have no right to take the law into your own hands and make such determination. The law has already spoken on both issues and you are absolutely wrong.

An individual has the right to challenge the Crown and the courts on the basis of law. Where a court makes an incorrect decision it can be appealed or stayed. In the case of an injunction it is a civil matter underlined by the court. However, from the beginning the issuing of injunctions have been consistently over ruled by higher courts and as such protesters can accept the risk to ignore the faulty injunctions. The lower court justices could try to impose a penalty, like they did with KI6 and Ardoch First Nations by jailing those who ignore an injunction. However, since the Superior Court released the KI6 and Robert Lovelace citing that it was an abuse of the system to jail these kinds of protesters, the use of injunctions to defend corporate interests is pretty much dead in the water today. And with the SCoC ruling that First Nations have a protected Charter right to protest, occupy land and block development, it is pretty clear what the continuing action will be. The Crown MUST consult and accommodate. That is the bottom line and no one can develop lands under question until they do. I see you aren't that smart either. That particular case was heard in 2000 and has nothing to do with the Ardoch blockade of Frontenac Ventures. The most recent SCoC ruling has not yet been publish but was reported just before Christmas 2008. Do catch up with the law before you shoot your mouth off, would ya.....

Ah...but "rights" are an individual as well as a collective responsibility. You cannot have any rights unless you are willing to exercise them, which is exactly what gays and lesbians, disabled people and people of colour do. By refusing to abide by the discrimination they have the ability to challenge the offender, and is they do not get satisfaction they can go to the human rights tribunal or sue the offender. We all have the same benefit, regardless of the discrimination and no one can be denied their right.

Discrimination occurs in all segments of society even today but that does not make it legal. However, the right still exists under the Constitution. Supreme Court of Canada is revelaing that one by one.

Doesn't matter. An injunction based on false law principles would be as if it didn't exist. A lower court action doesn't over-ride Charter Rights, nor federal law and must at all times be consistent with both.

There have been injunctions issued by lower courts that have been ignored because they are legally faulty. When they were appealed (as in the case of Lovelace v. Ontario) the Supreme Court not only found that jailing native people for participating in protests was over the top, but that the protests, occupations and prevention of any development on contested lands were entirely legal and reasonable. Native people have a Charter right to stop development and to delay construction on any site where the Crown has failed to fully consult and accommodate their interests. The law has always been on Six Nations' side and Canada, it provinces and municipalities are now being forced to abide by it. The recent decisions mean that there will be more not less, protests and the OPP have no other option but to stand by and keep the peace. While they have stated in the past that they are not enforcers of injunctions based on civil disputes, unless the peace is breached at an occupation or protest, their only role will be to stand by and keep the rabble rousers like McHale, his skinhead friends and others away from the protesters. The balance of justice has tipped in the direction of native people across Canada and people like McHale are nothing but mice in a room full of elephants.

"Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...." All of us receive the same benefit and homophobes cannot hide behind the law or their discrimination to single out one segment of our society.

That is no only incorrect, it is a ridiculous assertion. Gays and Lesbians are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. Nothing is special about it. We all have the right not to be discriminated against by people like you for your sexual orientation.

Sarcasm aside the largest employer on Six Nations is government followed I believe, by Grand River Enterprises. Although your rhetoric doesn't surprise me....you must be another friend of Gary McHale's since he uses the same propaganda to support his racist point of view. By the way, I wonder what happened to Kengs333? I suppose he just gave up that moniker once he was banned from here....?

That's been a long-standing objective of western conservatives - to decentralize government. It has been tried and has failed to some degree in that the federal government gets its power back when the provinces start begging for money. We are not the US and so provinces unlike states cannot run on their own independent from the federal government and make up their own rules, nor can they unilaterally change the Constitution in the way they it structured the role of provinces.

The last guy that was as homophobic as you make yourself out to be turned out to be a gay in denial. Now he is happily married to another guy. Make sure you invite us all to your coming out party...k?

Of course your reference is "welfare" - a ward of the state - and can't understand what community activism is all about? The problem is there are two competing powers looking at the same land base. In the past the Crown made agreements and promises on behalf of Canada and Canadians historically have ignored them. Now when the Crown insists that Canada abide by the rule of law, people like you issue epithets. I take it as it is.....you have no reference for your accusations....