Moonbox

You haven't posted a single point/fact in this entire thread...clown.

It's pretty standard no matter what we're talking about. I'm here for the discussion. Some posters just stonewall and troll for the sake of it and that's probably why First Nations threads end up the way they do. Here we have CR.

Welcome to a political internet forum. Thanks for posting anyways. That was really helpful.

Actually it was one of the best books I've ever read. It was such a surreal and weird book and it's not something I would normally read, but it was the most open minded piece of writing I've ever touched. The way the book touched on all the different religions and broke them down was enlightening. Every world leader SHOULD read it. I'm not a huge Obama fan but if he actually read that and came to those conclusions (rather than have them written for him) then I'm impressed. I'm not surprised Harper hasn't read it. It's a little too 'spiritual' for his tastes and the way it compares Hinduism, Islam and Christianity (and concludes they are all basically the same thing) would probably make his Bible-thumping party go crazy.

The more you post man the dumber you look. You can be critical of Israel and not be anti-Semitic at the same time. I have many problems with the State of Israel, but I believe in their right to exist and protect themselves and I think their neighbors make it pretty difficult to exist peacefully. I also grew up with Jews and think they're great. Idiotic. I hate to invoke Godwin's law already but that's just like saying if you're critical of Nazi Germany then you hate Christians. Their symbol was a Cross. It's too bad you say so much stupid **it amidst your posts because at least you have a point here. That is pretty lame if it's true. Stick to the facts and stop making up so much garbage and maybe everyone will stop making fun of you.

Brilliant.

I don't know if debating with them is possible. I feel more like I'm trying to reason with a couple of poo-flinging monkeys.

Ah...we're back to this again are we? I provided numerous facts. I refuted your lousy SCoC cases, I cited Section 1 of the Charter, I explained what qualified as Aboriginal Title and asked you to comment on them, and you've ignored everything I've said and done nothing but repeat yourself over and over again. Your whole argument (ALL of it) hinges on your belief that aboriginal rights are above and beyond Section 1 of the Charter. I've asked you to provide references of where and when any Canadian judge has ever explicitly asserted this. If this is going to be your entire argument then back it up. Don't ask me for facts again until you can do this.

You really don't get it. The "Rights" of Canadians are also 'recognized' in the Charter. If you want to argue 'fact' then find me a reference where ANY judge in Canada has explicitly stated that aboriginals don't fall under Section 1 of the Charter. How you want the Charter to be interpreted is unfortunately not reality. I'll take a lesson from the newsletter "Arguments for Babies" that you subscribe to and tell you: If you can't prove that "fact" then all of your arguments are worthless. Oh, and by the way, squawking repetition doesn't count as proof.

Personally I doubt they will care enough to do anything about it. I've yet to hear this come up in conversation EVER with ANYONE.

You'll have to do better than empty testimonials. Reference whatever it is you're talking about because I have no idea why and when they would have done that. Regardless, bad decisions are made quite often. This, however, does not in any way support the idea that the Supreme Court will hand over southern Ontario to the Six Nations, so why did you even bring it up?

It's interesting how poorly CR understands the Charter when his/her forum name is chartered rights. Regardless, whether First Nations are part of Canada or not has nothing to do with what falls under Section 1 of the Charter -- namely everything.

Shwa you're a joke. You've said nothing constructive in the whole thread and you're just here trolling and insulting people. I know you think you're really clever and smart, but your lame insults and infantile wit wouldn't impress a five year old. Grow up, and when you have something worthwhile to say maybe people will bother responding to you.

Honestly...I think something is tripped up in your brain because you're just repeating yourself and not processing anything else anyone is saying. Yes. I know that. Thanks for that little tidbit. Their Charter right allows them to bypass 'most' of the limits placed on hunting and fishing that normal Canadians adhere to. You've ONCE AGAIN failed to show us how this shows they are not subject to Section 1 of the Charter. I'll spell it out for you ONE MORE time before I give up on you, because you either ignoring everything I'm writing or you're just too dense to figure it out. Allowing aboriginals to hunt and fish largely where and when they please is a right given to them by Section 25 and 35 of the Charter. This right is reasonable because they're a relatively tiny population and because this is how they lived before we got here and it's not exactly killing us to allow them to do so. These rights do not infringe on Section 1 of the Charter in ANY way AT ALL. Section 1 of the Charter applies to EVERYONE and everything in Canada. I know this is hard for you to figure out, being a real grown-up thought and all, but Section 1 of the Charter tells us that the law is malleable, subject to interpretation and only applicable to the extent that it is REASONABLE to uphold in a just and fair society. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING exceeds this right.

What's that law again? That one about how idiots eventually get frustrated and invariably end up making references to Hitler or Nazis when they lose an argument? It's funny how quickly William Ashley fell back on that. It takes a special type of moron to get Hitler into a discussion as quickly as he did. What's more, he did it out of nowhere! Congrats Helmet! You're a real champion. Here's your participation award! Don't worry. The PM will come watch you compete!

It's not fact. Not only have you provided no evidence of this, but you've twisted it to suit your own argument. The reasonable limits apply to EVERYTHING. You cite hunting and fishing laws as evidence that aboriginals don't fall under section 1 of the Charter? How absurd is that??? Allowing aboriginals to hunt and fish where they please sounds pretty reasonable to me. That would be an instance where your Section 25 and 35 are upheld simply because they do not violate Section 1. Of course, I'd bet you good money that if an aboriginal were to run into my backyard and start shooting squirrels, he'd almost certainly be arrested. Why? Because that's not reasonable. If an aboriginal wants to hunt within reason where it makes sense to hunt and it doesn't hurt anyone, go nuts. First off, I don't even think you understand what the word jurisprudence actually means, because it doesn't even make sense the way you used it there. I think the word you were looking for was precedent. That aside, the cases you've displayed in no way show that aboriginals aren't subject to Section 1. I'm not familiar with all of them, but I'm pretty sure Marshall was just a fishing dispute out East where some tribe or another was given the right to fish and sell their catch as a treaty obligation. Again...that seems pretty 'reasonable' doesn't it? That in no way, shape or form even comes close to even TOUCHING on Section 1 of the Charter. The implications of Delgamuukw, as far as I understand, concluded only that the Court would admit 'oral history' into proceedings and gave us an idea what Aboriginal title meant. Again, nothing conflicts with Section 1 of the Charter. Of the cases you provided that I know anything about, that's 0/2 on the 'having any relevance with respect to Section 1 of the Charter' scale. The problem I have with your arguments, CR, is that they depend entirely on obscure cases and citations that don't even prove what you're telling us they do. Your citations are your crutch, and you dance around them and stumble if you're called out and asked to reason it out. They've done no such thing. It has more to do with the shitstorm they get themselves in any time they try to and that most of the time the natives aren't actually bothering anyone. My cottage is right outside a reserve and I find they're generally fairly friendly. I enjoy their public garden they maintain on their reserve. It's quite pretty. Let's go back for a second and go to one of your cases. Delgamuukw is the one i'm looking for I think. Aside from the silliness of admitting 'oral history' to the Courts, the case helped define what Aboriginal Title was. To prove Aboriginal Title, it must be established that the clear and exclusive (mostly) native occupation of land existed a long long time ago and that occupation has continued up until the present day. What that tells us is that land inhabited by Canadians for centuries (and not by aboriginals) probably doesn't fall under that umbrella. Why? Because it's completely unreasonable to decide that tiny minorities living far away have any present right to territory occupied, worked and lived on by Canadians for centuries. I am one. Congratulations on that shining example of intellectualism. There are, however, many who disagree with you, and I'm sure I could dig up plenty even on this forum if I had to. Scroll back a few pages to find them. It must be tough to struggle so hard with the whole 'reasoning and logic' parts of an argument.

That's a systemic problem with western economies and not so much the problem of NAFTA or the Euro trade union. Mexico shouldn't have ever been a part of NAFTA in the first place. Either way, nothing will happen in terms of this news.

You didn't counter or dismiss anything. There's a reason Section 1 of the Charter is Section 1. The statement itself is a declaration that every law, regulation and even the Charter itself is subject to interpretation in a 'reasonable' society. THAT is the basic and most fundamental truth of our legal system, or any good legal system anywhere. This means that your Sections 25 and 35 are subject to 'reasonable limits' within a fair and justified democratic society. To suggest that Sections 25 and 35 are immune to Section 1 of the Charter is something akin to an unstoppable force hitting an unmoveable object. Something has to give. You've decided that Sections 25 and 35 are to be held above the rest. Unfortunately, there are many who disagree. Your job now is to convince us why, or failing that, convince us why a court would rule in favor of a disproportional settlement that would make large populations poor in order to make a tiny minority fabulously and suddenly rich. Please answer with an explanation rather than more quotations. I'm still waiting for you to provide an actual argument.

Your links and references aren't arguments. If you actually HAD an argument to make, those links and references might SUPPORT it, but you don't. I've tried telling you about a dozen times here that your narrow interpretations of ancient treaties and documents does not necessarily justify the transfer of billions and billions and billions worth of heavily populated land and no court in the world would even consider it. I'm embarrassed for you that you couldn't take that at face value and just discuss that reasonably with me, but you've refused to even look at what I'm saying until I've provided a 'fact' to you. Here's an interesting 'fact': 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. I went to the effort of digging that up. Now you go back through my previous posts and address them point for point, namely how a sane Court of Law would validate ridiculous claims like you make in your forum signature. You'll have to do better than, "but...but...the Treaties....," because Section 1 of the Charter refutes the assumption that any scrap of paper be looked at blindly and not be subject to interpretation in a reasonable court of law. I believe smallc already brought that up, but you failed (again) to acknowledge that.

Still waiting for you to use your brain. How about we leave it at that? You're obviously not here for discussion. No point in talking to you clowns if all you're going to do is repeat one-liners like broken records. FYI look up the definition of a 'fact' and then review how pathetic your posting is.

LoLoLoL. Bingo.

Hey shwa. You haven't said anything in this thread that even resembled a constructive argument. You've done nothing but troll here and pretended you're clever. You've asked me to quote Canadian Law with respect property ownership, which would probably take me an hour or so to dig up, while you've not acknowledged a single point anyone else has made here against you. Why bother? You're here to troll. My question for you is why do people have to pay to take my property if I don't own it? We're still waiting for an answer on that one.... Take a second and read the sentence back to yourself. Think about it for a second and maybe you'll realize how stupid it was. I don't appear to have the intellectual capacity for facts???? Did you seriously just say that?

Mr. Canada let's get over the assault okay? There was no assault here. If that's assault then bumping into someone at the subway is assault. Give it up. You're making yourself sound dumb. Move on to funnier and more relevant things, like laughing at Layton for how starved he is for media attention.

Nothing takes five minutes in parliament.

This seems like a stupid make-work project to me but I'm rather indifferent either way.