charter.rights

I agree. Maybe if all the Europeans had just stayed home in the first place, Kanata would be a much more loving and peaceful place.

They are OUR children. All Canadians. All worthy of protection under the Charter. All deserving of our governments concern with their welfare. OUR children. Unless of course you aren't a true Canadian and that would make you "one of them" instead of "one of us".

I agree. Spending $1 billion on the G20 party for Harper's international friends is way more worthy then to help educate and protect our children, right?

Badactor, you are still correct about the intent of the constitution. It is to control the actions of government and prevent tyranny against the people. Unfortunately, the Conservatives see the exploitation of people as a means to profit and the presnt way the constitution is read gets in their way. So they have for 30 years tried to undermine it, reinterpret it and deny it as much as they can get away with. The Supreme Court ruled that Omar Khadr's rights were violated by the Conservative government when they willingly participated in his torture in order to extract intelligence. The Federal Court last week order Steven Harper to intervene on his behalf. Yet their response it to appeal the order to the Federal Court of Appeal, and tie up a citizen of Canada's rights in court for the next two years. This is only one example and there are many more if you just scan the news over the last 3 or 4 years they have been the government. Most Canadians are ignorant and apathetic about what is going on, the restriction on their rights, and the unconstitutional operation of the Conservative government. As Canadians we should be learning about these issues and taking a stand against an increasingly tyrannic government. Otherwise we will wake up some day and Canada will be a third world puppet of the US conservative movement and a slave to their corporations and military regimes.

Yes he is. They are myth-bound people sucked in by imaginative politics and willing participants in delusion of self-importance and underachievement. Poor white males who can't stand their own skins and still verbally beat down women behind their backs. One day they will wake up but the it m ay be too late.....

That is how I predicted it....You can't make a rational argument so you try to take your ball and go away. Such a baby, really. That is exactly how delusions work. When they are challenged through truth and fact people get a pissy attitude, fight, yell scream stomp their feet and have a regular temper tantrum - exactly as you have demonstrated through-out this entire thread. If your myths and the logic built on those myths get dispelled, your whole world falls apart. So is it really a personality disorder, or schizophrenia? The blue pill or the red one?

Now you are speaking not only for most people, but all of the people in this thread. Can you provide me with the science behind your authority to speak on everyone's behalf please? No one cares what you think because your thinking is flawed and your conclusions are delusional. And your imagining that you speak for everyone is clear cut evidence of a psychological or personality disorder. Which is it?

No. I did not propose the crime scene nor did I analyze the cause. Ghosthacked proposed the scenario and I cast doubt on his logical conclusion by proposing other "logical" (delusional) possibilities. The point is that logic has no bearing on a factual conclusion and that no conclusion is possible until all the facts are in. Nor did I suggest that reason was not used in the course of decision, as Moonbox suggests. Rather reason is used to weigh facts and witness credibility but only to the degree that the conclusion is uncertain but there is a reasonable amount of evidence that can lead to a most likely conclusion. Here is perfect example of your delusional thinking. Ghosthacked only provided 2 pieces of information: "This man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah there is the bullet..." There is only one piece of physical evidence. The bullet. While there is a wound it is delusional to conclude that it is a bullet wound for the potential possibilities mentioned earlier. Now where you are severely deluded is to add evidence and make conclusions that are not there. There is no bloody bullet. You invented that from nowhere. Then based on your imagination you make the equally retarded conclusion: "With the given facts, and with even a sniff of intelligence, most people would be able to come to this conclusion. It makes SENSE to assume that man died of a gunshot wound." You would get laughed out of very police station in the world if you attempted to "assume" what you have. And your assertion that "most people" could come to the same conclusion is childish at best. Most people would ask for the information and facts, not look at one piece of evidence and make a wild guess as you have.... But THEN if that wasn't enough you go beyond retarded and suggest that the lack of information about the scene (was there shrapnel, puncture wound, or a surgical history all of which are merely suggestive counters and possibilities) is licence enough to certify that your conclusion is absolute. How stupid can you be? I did not "imagine" those outcomes. I suggested them in order to get you to see that your conclusion could have no basis in fact. Rather evidence MUST be compiled BEFORE and reasonable conclusion can be reached. And since it is just as possible that a great number of incontinent thinkers like you would come to the same misinformed conclusions gives us proof that the justice system needs courts and informed judges to rule on the guilt or innocence of accused. In your world you would have hung him for coming to a "logical" conclusion of the scenario. You fit right in there with the witch burners, and torturers of the middle ages, and the McCarthy nuts during the mid-20th century. You are delusional and have no chance at being resaonable (let alone sensible) with that kind of seriously flawed thinking.

Logic is a delusion. You want to play this game? The bullet wound could be shrapnel. It could be an arrow hole. It could even be a puncture wound with around object. It could even be a post-surgery laparoscopic entry wound, left open for drainage. There are lots of possibilities. The bullet could be a red-herring placed there to make people like you come to the wrong conclusions. You can pretend it is a bullet hole and pretend on that basis you have the murder weapon, but until the autopsy is completed and the facts are revealed all we have is a dead guy. The courts don't care about your delusions or your theories. They want the facts - evidence and witness testimony. Anything less is a witch hunt....which if you remember from the middle ages was propagated by delusional thinkers who tried to use their logic to convict witches of casting magic spells over them. So keep up you red-herrings, strawman, and your delusional logic. It has no relevance here and you are a fool for trying to promote it as anything other than your incontinent thinking process.

Whiff whiff. Your brain is oxygen deprived. Strawman, backpeddling, red-herring, fals authority...man you are full of it.

More {sigh} backpeddling and strawman arguments. Is that all you have, child? Next, you'll be shouting using caps right?

Moonbox and Smallc I've booked you at the 9th Annual Aboriginal Law Conference so you can learn something about aboriginal jurisprudence and land law. Out of all the MLW posters you seem to be in most need of it. But wait...they probably wouldn't let you in. Ignorance is prohibited..... We have been asked to present....

No they are not. Logic is not particular to law. Facts and reason, yes, but only so far as the facts form a reasonable belief in accordance with legal precedence. Logic is a schizophrenic concept and has no place in justice, at all, whatsoever. The rest of your back-peddling is comical to say the least and no doubt is an attempt to hide your incompetence. That we will dismiss and move onward.

Restoration of rights will naturally cause the return of property, payments for loss of use, and often penalties for abuses.

Neither. It is a rights revolution.

Logic is a delusion one keeps telling themselves. It is not a universal measure of fairness or correctness. Reason is based on the collection of prejudices and experience one has. It too does not define fairness or correctness. That is why we have laws and courts to weigh out justice. Sometimes their decision defies individual logic and reason (individual delusions and prejudices). We hear outrage at court decisions all the time and mostly they are void of facts. Section 25 over-rides all law that conflicts with it.Silly boy, Section 1. is not primary just because it appears in first order. It is Section 1 only because it is the most general of principles. However it is preceded by a more important principle: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.... But maybe you haven't throughly read the Constitution and missed this: 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Aboriginal Jurisprudence is a well studied philosophy of law. It is not precedent. It is jurisprudence. Maybe if you studied law you might better understand how wrong you really are in all of this. Your dreaming about natural law over-riding a constitution is about as whacky as right-wing nuts justifying murdering someone because they believe in abortion. First Nations Jurisprudence and Aboriginal Law "The Supreme Court of Canada has declared that the Grundnorm, or first principle, of Aboriginal rights resides in the simple fact of First Nations living in distinctive societies and cultures. These diverse spontaneous or organic orders of First Nations stretch back through the ages and provide the ultimate reason for accepting First Nations jurisprudence and law as well as the claims of Aboriginal rights. Intimately connected to First Nations jurisprudence and law, Aboriginal rights are reference points to the underlying, resourceful, and effective First Nations legal system or system of law. The processes and principles of First Nations jurisprudence and law inform right behavior and sustain Aboriginal rights; they are the vital unstated assumptions upon which Aboriginal rights are based. These processes and principles of First Nations jurisprudence transform the constitutional framework of both Eurocentric jurisprudence and Aboriginal rights." No, we are discussing jurisprudence, not just precedent. Now take a breath and give your brain some oxygen.

Yes.

You can go on (as you have been) about "this or that COULD happen" but in reality - especially as a civil and peaceful society - there is little appetite in Canada for change, or for its more extreme revolution. Whether or not a judge COULD rule against First Nations is a moot point since judges HAVE RULED in their favour, and the jurisprudence (you know that big word that baffles you) points that they will continue to rule in their favour as well as to reinforce prior rulings, exactly as the Supreme Court of Canada is doing presently. If you think for a second that the Constitution can be rewritten then you are sadly mistaken. It would take a military coup to inititiate something like that, since the court's prerogative (as in the Royal Prerogative) is to defend the constitution, and even if there was the will to make changes, the Courts would demand strict adherence to the amending formula contained in Part V of the Constitution Act 1982. Such an action would trigger all kinds of public and court challenges on the meaning and intent of various articles in Part V that it would likely tie up the process for 50 years. So while theoretically the constitution can be amended pragmatically it would unlikely happen if the process was to remove a right or freedom instead of strengthening one. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Crown's job is to enforce this fundamental guarantee and right now the laws prescribing limitations for native people, including the refusals by government to acknowledge their obligations for consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation guaranteed by sections 25. and 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being thrown out of court or redefined, just as they should be in a free and democratic society. Oh and by the way.... Aboriginal land and property rights are a guaranteed right under the Charter. Ours are not. So if the Crown was pressed to expropriate your house and give to some First Nation. there isn't a thing you can do about it. Such is the case where: 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.... These rights even trump Crown law.

Not at all. Who holds the higher authority? The people or the Crown in this situation?

Still inhaling self-generated methane I see. Whiff whiff.....

Oh you silly little c. Have you not been following my links? Since Moonbox is reluctant to convict himself of wrong thinking, perhaps you will answer Shwa's question: "Can the Crown seize your real property, without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?" When you can do that with honesty and integrity, then you can criticize and challenge my assertions. But stop avoiding the real question and get on with it. "Else you be accused as troll".

Your poor comprehension is confusing you. We are discussing the Crown. The representatives in Canada are the Queen, in her absence the Governor General, the Courts, Lawyers, Institutions, The Armed Forces etc. This not not a discussion about the Queen or for that matter the Armed Forces. It is about the power of the Crown, and rulings by the Supreme Court have maintained that the honour of :The Crown" is at risk if native claims are not settled in accordance with the original intent of the agreements like the Silver Covenant Chain and the Royal Proclamation 1763. Maybe take a breather. You are apparently out of air.

You are still on the wrong path. We were talking about "The Crown" and its power in Canada, aside from "The People" and over "The Government". Your confusion about the Queen is nothing more than a red herring, and you have been caught with your pants down on this one. Now be a sport and answer Shwa's question. Your whole opposition is sunk with the answer. MDancer. You are out of your league. Go have another drink and think about it.

But that is just it. The natives are not breaking the law. They are fully within their constitutional rights to protest and associate freely over the abuse on their land. They have a right of proprietary estoppel to stop up and prevent construction on their land. The have the right under the Charter to be consulted on any development of construction that may affect their interests. The violent acts that might have occurred form time to time were not all the protesters. And there is still lots of doubt in a number of the confrontations about who really started them. But that is not all the protesters. The Royal Proclamation 1763 states: "And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds. "And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained." "We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement:..." According to the Mitchell Map 1757 and the map that accompanied this proclamation, all lands in southern Ontario were identified as Six Nations Territories. To this day Six Nations has not surrender their rights to any of the vast lands, and have only made leases that were payable into their now $trillion trust account. Within their territory, this proclamation guarantees they shall not be molested or disturbed. (which means no taxes, no Canadian law, no harassment.) Further where a surrender was purported to have taken place, this proclamation also requires that a public meeting be held, unanimous consent of the entire community has been obtained, a copy of the surrender has been immediately distributed to the Bands involved and a written recording of the meeting and the agreements have been submitted and approved by both parties (as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in The Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada). No surrender has ever been obtained from Six Nations on these lands, nor have surrenders been obtain in a likely fashion in the majority of Canada. However, where a treaty does it exist it does not surrender land and only surrenders some rights to land, while maintaining others. So the "territory" where no Indians are to be interfered with, and where no settlers or governors may settle identified in the proclamation means all of southern Ontario. Bill. In 2008, 80% of Canadians believe the government should settle claims with First Nations. So you don't speak for Canadians, and it appears you don't even represent a substantial minority of them.

It is a myth. Dumb is the one that believe it.