Moonbox

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.

What you're asking for doesn't make any sense. You're asking me to provide proof that all the land claims you bleat about won't be resolved. I can't prove that because that would be like me asking you to prove what I'm going to have for breakfast tomorrow. I could ask you to prove the reverse, and you similarly can't because nobody can prove what's going to happen in upcoming days/years. Look up the word 'fallacy' and then review your arguments. The proof you've tried to show me has giant holes in it. Waving a piece of paper around doesn't qualify for a good argument, and that's what you need to prove in a Court of Law.

Of managing public sector employees and public sector finances? Interesting...

This is probably the smartest thing anyone has said here in the whole thread. If you want to complain about the deficit, then find us places where we can reduce spending. Health Care is a universal benefit and useful to basically everyone. It is also most important to the vast majority of Canadians. This is probably one of the last places you want to look for cuts. From there, where can we cut? I can think of 10 easy things that would save us billions, but we'd have people up in arms over every single one of them. At the same time though, they're happy to complain about the deficit. Quite a nasty little circle isn't it?

Public servants reap the benefits of public spending. Blaming them, perhaps, is not entirely fair, but asking private sector Canadians to pay excessively for those benefits is even less fair. Not as much as I care about paying extra taxes to support spending that wasn't justified in the first place. Thanks for the lesson in organizational behaviour. Unfortunately for your argument, often the demands and expectations of the above-noted employees are unreasonable, particularly in unionized organizations and even more particularly public service organizations. In such cases cost cutting measures often more than compensate for extra sick days here and there.

Spoken like the child you are. You've failed at every turn to come up with anything even resembling a well-thought out argument. You haven't responded to a single argument anyone has made against you. You can continue to plug your ears, close your eyes and cry loudly, but in the real world that doesn't make you right. I'll have a good chuckle at your expense 40 years from now when nothing you say is going to happen actually happens.

CR the law as you're explaining it to us IS your opinion. You've given us narrow snippets and silly claims and shown us nothing more than what you THINK should be the interpretation of the law. I don't know how much of a legal background you have, but I have a fair bit of education with the English Common Law system. There are plenty of laws in our system that don't make sense any more and aren't followed or enforced. Thus, your assertion that a Law is ominipotent and unassailable is absolutely and totally false. A court of law interprets a law in the context that it was written. Any subsequent claims made with respect to that law are interpreted in the spirit that they are made. Often, the courts can decide that the intention of the law in the first place was never to be used in the context that claims are being made today. What I'm trying to tell you is that Laws and their interpretations change with circumstances. The purpose of Canadian Law is to make life fair and safe for all Canadians, First Nations included. You seem to have it stuck in your head that Canadian Law is a tool to be exploited by the First Nations into bullying Canadians off of land they've lived on for centuries. Once again, I respect the fact that the First Nations are getting settlements. What I take exception to are the assertions you make like "All of Southern Ontario legally belongs to Six Nations" or the seeming belief that the First Nations are going to have all the land they lost 2-300 years ago returned to them. That's not going to happen and Canadian Law will not even look into it. What you fail to realize is that the Supreme Court also has the best interest of Canadians at heart. There's little to no legal precedent anywhere in the world that indicates lands settled and occupied for 200+ years should be returned to the ancestors of long-dead previous owners. The courts might deem small settlements here and there like the $65M one in Ontario you cited, simply because it's probably fair to say the First Nations have been abused even within the last century and because it's a policy of appeasement. Multi-billion dollar settlements for heavily populated areas, however, are completely out of the question. Why? Because to settle a lands claim that big for the First Nations would unfairly force countless Canadians to suffer for the disproportional benefit of making a small minority rich. This would be unfair, and thus unjust, and thus the Courts wouldn't even look at it. Now as of yet you've failed to respond to a single point I've made. You and Shwa have happily baited me and tossed around silly rhetoric, but why don't you try to explain to me how the courts would justify the sort of settlement I just discussed without simply quoting archaic legal documents like a broken record. Reason it out for me please. That's really what Law is all about. It's the enforcement of fairness and reason.

All your link says is that there was a pipe ceremony at a school. Neat. That doesn't prove that they can be held whenever and wherever they want. Look up a detailed definition of 'fallacy'. You're having some problems with your arguments.

How is delusional to assume that millions of human being would not freely give up their homes and property to a small group of self-interested minorities? All for the sake of a piece of paper scribbled on 200+ years ago? Explain please. I know you think you're really clever and funny, but there's more wit in a bag of dirt than there is in your head. Every human being is self-interested. It's basic human motivation. Wait...sorry...that might have been too advanced a concept for you. I'll try to keep things simpler for you. If you understood what the purpose and intention of 'Laws' were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll let you figure that one out. I hope your brain doesn't explode. There's that incredible 'wit' again . It's like playing, "I know you are but what am I?" with Shwa. He's straight up dumb as bricks.

So why haven't we had a pipe ceremony in the middle of parliament yet? Why have the First Nations not walked onto a baseball field to start smoking in the middle of a game? Why have none of us ever seen this happen? I didn't realize that First Nations members were immune to the laws of trespassing. Wait a minute. They're not...at all. This is blind delusion at its worst.

My opinion is based on how logical and self-interested human beings would behave. Your opinion is based on fantasy. This is a perfect example of your inability to grasp simple logic. Asking me for 'proof' of future events is idiotic. That would be like me asking you to 'prove' who is going to win the next election. Your 'evidence' of the settlements has already been acknowledged. I know they've happened. I know there will be more. At the same time, however, I know that Canadians will only be willing to stomach so much. When the burden of paying out mooching whiners to shut their lazy mouths becomes too heavy, it will simply stop. I don't need proof for that, because that's simple human nature. Again...your terrible logic. Of course Canadians want to negotiate and find settlements to outstanding claims. I also do. We want the First Nations to shut up and start living like normal human beings. With that said, the fact that Canadians want settlements to be made is in no way indicative of our willingness to substantiate ridiculous claims like you make in your signature. The honour of the Crown is meaningless trite. The Supreme Court of Canada is there to protect the rights , freedom and prosperity of Canadians. The previous rulings may help establish precedent for similar and subsequent claims around the country, but they will in no way cause the landslide of settlements you seem to be hoping and expecting. The Supreme Court can and will eventually say, "That's all you're getting." The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what your pieces of paper and Courts say, Canadians simply won't stand for giving away their future for a bunch of lazy nobodies First Nations people. In the end, we are the ultimate decision makers and the international community recognizes that.

Thank you. It's not often when Toad and I agree, but when we do we must be on to something! When a private sector company suffers, the wage increases and bonuses often freeze. Why shouldn't that happen in the public sector? Same