charter.rights

Nah. I'm in the 6 figures crowd. And BTW. I have a niece just out of university earning twice as much as your $40 peanuts. Seems to me you are an underachiever.

Wrong. Go read the definitions again. Racism requires the "belief" that racial differences give one superiority over the others. Racial prejudice is acting on that "belief". So if a person if using a epithet against a person of a different race in a manner to either degrade the person then it is appropriately called racism. If however, it is the same race calling another person of the same race a name it is a pejorative. A Caucasian calling another Caucasian "limey" is not racist. It doesn't meet the definition and therefor cannot by definition be racist, regardless if it is directed at an individual or a group. So calling you a "red-haired fink" is not racist, nor is calling you a yellow-bellied skunk. Calling a guy a limey is not racist. There is no way you can swing it that way. And that is exactly the reason why fighting racism in court is pretty difficult. The accuser must prove that the offender has an intent to harm in the belief that he or she was superior.

Not at all. Clarifying definitions and understanding terminology is imperative to proper communication. Using red herrings to detract from that communication makes you something of a dolt.

I'm curious Argus. What to you want to be when you grow up? (I mean beside an impotent mail clerk...)

The natives are in compliance with the law. They have an absolute right to stop development on their lands, and to require proof from the Crown of any claims they have made a surrender. It has never happened. So when the police try to clear the site using an illegal injunction the only answer is to resist. That is perfectly lawful.

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: I don't make it up, nor do I apply it only where it suits me. To you murder is justified. It is obvious the law doesn't count to you....but then again you are psychotic and probably aren't fully aware of what you are thinking or saying...

Prove it. As usual, your "word" has no credibility. I have proven via R.v Marshall what the Supreme Court of Canada has said. Are you or that pathetic faker saying that you know better?

Nope. Wrong again. Racism: 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2: racial prejudice or discrimination A "limey" is not a race. It doesn't fit the definition and so calling someone that name is a pejorative. Pejorative: : a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase. No matter how you guys try to swing it, you cannot turn pejorative into racism.

Maybe but I doubt it. Regardless, the government MUST comply with the law and it really doesn;t matter whether or not they are Liberals or Conservatives. The fact remains that aboriginal law not only reigns supreme but the extent of it is being strengthened almost every day in one form or another. It is a reality, and the Provincial Conservatives will not be changing anything to do with aboriginal rights, or their response to it. I am curious though how you and Wild Bill can predict the future with any accuracy. You certainly don't represent the majority of people in Ontario, and I highly doubt that most Ontarians are even concerned about the aboriginal issues and protests once they are over.

The laws have been shot down. In R. v Marshall (1999) the court held that Indians could fish and sell their catch to earn a moderate income. That right has been extended to hunting or resource harvesting as well. Marshall Summary Provinces cannot limit aboriginal rights (even though they try) and so controls on hunting and fishing, or trying to impose licencing or quotas on aboriginal people is not enforceable. And even if there is a conservation issue under which they would like to limit hunting or fishing they must close the non-native fishery, or hunting first.

So not only to you claim to talk for a "town of 40,000" but you can predict the future too? Bill you are such a delustionist. With all that dementia you suffer from I suspect it is time to change your diaper. According to all the people I talk to on a regular basis, Caledonia is long forgotten. Very few of them saw it as McGuinty's fault. Many at the time did see Fantino as being a culprit, but since he is gone now they really don't care to discuss it. In fact most of those I have contact with just want the whole thing to shut up. It is done and over with. So while McGuinty may have made mistakes in the past, most people are focused on other things. With Hudak being linked to Mike Harris, I doubt that there will be any hope of him forming any kind of a majority - even if he can muster that. However, I do think that McGuinty is like Chretien, in that everyone might loath him, but he has at least done the right thing in many cases. The fact that he has changed with popular opinion also plays well with those who don't like the Harper dictatorship. So we all know that you do not speak for "a town of 40,0000", let alone the popular opinion of the general public. Six Nations has managed to move forward in 500 years of fear-based verbal and institutional assaults and I highly suspect that they will continue beyond the likes of people like you, who try to substitute their own myopic and hate-filled opinions for popular opinion. You are really a nobody, and your viewpoints and opinions concerning Caledonia and Six Nations really means absolutely nothing. So at the end of the day as us Canadians go back to sleep and let the world fly by us, the relationship with Six Nations will go back to normal, until the next dispute rises. The reality is that Six Nations is legally, and morally in the right to stop development at Caledonia, and according to the polls at the time, 80% of Canadians supported the settlement of al outstanding land claims. You can expect a long cold decade ahead.

Mr. Tough Girl...ya right... I agree that your being a dough-boy doesn't help your girlies talk at all. If you only had credibility and intelligence, then we could talk.

Very good. A sign of surrender....finally.... When you change your name and start representing who you REALLY are, then maybe we can examine your internalized bigotry from an objective position.

So now YOU speak for all of Haldimand County, ya right.... Six Nations is ahead of the game. Maybe the OPP is under some unwarranted scrutiny, but all and la the government is changing and adapting to "accommodate" First nations issues. Anyone who keeps up on current events knows that.... Ontario releases new aboriginal consultation requirements. No doubt this is a result of the greater awareness of their constitutional obligations, part of which is due to protests like DCE and Ipperwash.

You might want to reread the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Aboriginal rights are inalienable and inherent. According to the S Supreme Court aboriginal rights exist because they predate the Royal Proclamation. It has nothing to do with the treaties, except that treaties gave further recognition that rights would not be infringed upon, in the treaty area...meaning that the aboriginal rights to hunt and fish would continue to be recognized. 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and ( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15) 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. The essence of aboriginal jurisprudence is that aboriginal rights exist beyond any law or proclamation in Canada AND additional rights may be added treaties are clarified or as lands claims are settled. Aboriginal rights cannot be diminished (abrogated) ever, BUT can be added to and expanded as required. The reality is, hunting and fishing rights were at one time a right of all peoples in N.A. Unfortunately we (meaning our ascendants) screwed it up and could not take responsibility for their own actions. Instead the government had to do it for us. And since they could do that by law, they did. Yet we do not have the same ability under aboriginal constitutional rights to diminish their right to hunt or fish. Certainly as the court case cited provided, Provincial jurisdiction can not over-ride a federally regulated Indian Act.

No doubt your first words spoken as a baby. Try to keep up sonny.

I am fully aware of the ruling and its implications. The safety and conservation are two areas where the province (any province) must prove that infringement is justified. It does not, as you said early and clearly failed in your opinion, that provincial law can control aboriginal hunting. You were wrong, once again and guilty of trying to create fact where there is none. In the case cited the Supreme Court ruled against the province and basically told them they cannot create laws that regulate aboriginal rights. As such even where a treaty does not exist, aboriginal right will always prevail over provincial legislation. It is only where the right cannot be established where "laws of general application" would then apply. Actually, First Nations did not negotiate for hunting and fishing rights. They are pre-exiting aboriginal rights that cannot be abrogated or derogated - even by a treaty.

You are a fool: R. v. Morris – Limitations on Provincial Regulation of Treaty Rights Both the majority and the dissent in the Supreme Court of Canada confirm the following with respect to provincial regulation of treaty rights: 1. Treaty rights lie at the core of federal jurisdiction over "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" under s. 91(24) – i.e., matters of Indianness. 2. Provincial legislation that infringes treaty rights strikes at the core of Indianness, and accordingly does not constitutionally apply in respect of those rights of its own force. 3. While s. 88 incorporates provincial legislation of general application as federal law, it does so "subject to the terms of any treaty", and accordingly has no role in respect of provincial legislation that infringes treaty rights. 4. Provincial legislation can apply to and regulate treaty rights so long as it does not infringe those rights – i.e., involves only "insignificant interference" with them.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that provinces cannot dictate where natives can hunt. Essentially, anywhere in Canada is open to any native in N.A.. That is the law.

In fact they can. If they want to hunt in a farmer's field, they don't need his permission. If they want to hunt in the middle of summer they can hunt anytime...even at night.... There is no limit. In one weekend about15 natives took about 80 deer out of Presquille Provincial park and there wasn't a thing the wardens could do about it. The first time it happened the wardens did charge the natives but it was promptly thrown out of court, recognizing their aboriginal right to cull the deer. Two years later they did it again and at that time the wardens merely stood by the gates and asked them to be careful. No charges were laid.

Actually you are very wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that conservation might limit an aboriginal right to a resource, they have also concluded that hunting and fishing for a moderate income, or for a community benefit still outweighs any restrictions. Aboriginal people are exempt from laws that specify when and how they hunt, where they hunt and even exempt them from the national gun registration when they ahve an alternative. So Saipan is more correct and you are wrong.

For once I would agree with you. However, There is only one Charter. And if I had of married a native women, there would just be a lot more rights spawning around Canada.

No it wasn't an option. It is never an option for police to begin arresting people in a mob situation. That is just the nature of emergency services management. The first rule of enforcement is that you never put an emergency worker in harms way and you must wait until the situation has changed to a safer condition before effecting an arrest. But you wouldn't know that because you are not a cop or an emergency services worker, and as a mail-room level clerk you wouldn't have access to that kind of information. BTW the law says the the cop cannot use force unless he has a reasonable belief that his or someone else's life is in danger. Carrying a baseball bat - even in a mob situation - is never justification for lethal force. Just ask Acting Sargent Kenneth Deane.....oh wait you can't....because someone else possibly got to him, after the fact....you know...the mysterious rear end from a transport... If you knew the law you would have known that...

Yet, the protesters did not use knives either and leathal force was still an option for the OPP. Why else would they have had high powered weapons pointed at women and children in a number of protests? So what you are saying in essence is that the force is justified against unarmed Indians but not against armed police forces that are harming people to enforce an illegal injunction? The "push back" at Caledonia is well recorded and did not contain any protester initiated violence beyond a few tussles with police take downs. In the end Six Nations protesters were able to keep control of the DCE site without much bloodshed and no one was killed. And at the end of the day, the protesters were legally in the right to occupy and secure the site against the Clownadonians that tried to stir up the crap.

As I said, Wild Bill amply demonstrates not only that logic is a delusion, but that the extent of delusion can be so warped by poor intelligence that it is not discernible from mental illness. Now back to the subject matter. A number of lawyers I know have been washing over the declaration and have been "logically" trying to understand its implications. While I wouldn't go so far as some of them, it appears that the Declaration may push the government into a Constitutional amendment that will strengthen and not weaken aboriginal people rights along the lines of ownership / stewardship / governance over lands and resources outside of the Constitutional Orders that some claim ownership over aboriginal people. The result would be that aboriginal people would have absolute control over resources, and over lands not ceded to the Crown in formal verifiable (non-coerced) treaties. Those that do not meet the test would then be ruled unconstitutional and would be reverted to the pre-contact ownership / control of aboriginal people and we would have to enter into a whole new round of negotiations to continue to allow settlement. Mind you, this is educated speculation. It is however, highly likely that the next few years will determine whether or not the Supreme Court feels bound to comply with the Declaration, given the fact that they have already ruled that the interpretation of treaties and history must always be in favour of the way the Indians would have understood it at the time the agreements were made. If they do set the path in this direction then what we have experienced in the last 20 years - the protests, the occupations and escalating violence - could easily be accelerated and compressed into the next 5 to 10 years, given that the government and corporations have been reluctant to compley with the letter of the law, as it stands today. Thus we can expect more delays, and more shut down of major roads and bridges as experienced in the past. The problem is that there are many people (like the ill-informed here) that cry that native people are racists looking for special treatment, when the reality is that these are international agreements just like the Jay Treaty, that we can no more ignore than we can change to suit our own privilege. And if that means that the treaties promoted the recognition of aboriginal rights over ours, then so be it . We always have the option of renegotiating the terms of treaties, however we cannot just ignore them without consequences to our own livelihood and enjoyment of property. On another note I read today the the Province of Ontario have strengthen the requirements around archaeological surveys being prepared before development takes place. This will not only mean delays in development but increases in the costs of developments being passed on to consumers. New rules will help preserve archeological sites