tango

As a non-Indigenous Canadian, right now I think it's working more fairly than ever in the past, and I'm relieved because it's a pretty disgusting history we have in our treatment of Indigenous peoples to date: Very difficult to be proud of Canada. Even the provincial courts now know they have to consider Aboriginal rights. The Mining Act is being revised to accommodate Aboriginal rights. The province (ON) is developing a policy on 'duty to accommodate Aboriginal rights. etc etc Much better than in the past, though there are still plenty of challenges before we can ever claim to really respect the law and the rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada. Federal negotiations are still a sewer, though.

Aboriginal rights apply to all of Canada, but that is not outright ownership as we know it: More like a shared interest. 'A say in development and a share in revenues', subject to negotiation. Aboriginal Title is ownership and applies to 'reserves' and to lands retrieved through 'land claims', etc. Absolutely.

Protecting him from ending up in Guantanamo while still legally a child. (OOPS!)

Well you did say this ... So, yes ... "child killer" is appropriate. However, my observation has been that blustering cowards who talk like you are usually looking for someone else to do their dirty work for them.

So how's that working for you? Get back to me on your progress in rounding up "the majority".

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. I defer to the SCC. Here's a description: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC815558 Proof of Aboriginal Rights For rights other than aboriginal title, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that claimants must demonstrate that the right was integral to their distinctive aboriginal societies and exercised at the time of first contact with Europeans. While these may be now exercised in a modern way, practices that arose from European influence are not protected. This paradox is often expressed in relation to commercial trade in furs or fish, which the courts have seen as the product of European contact rather than integral to aboriginal societies* prior to contact. Fishing for food, community or ceremonial purposes is, however, a protected aboriginal right and may be exercised in a modern way with modern fishing gear. In order to prove an aboriginal title to traditional lands, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the important Delgamuukw case (1997) that such claims to title had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined aboriginal society as of the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory. In the same case, the Court ruled that the oral histories of the aboriginal peoples were to be accepted as evidence proving historic use and occupation. * commercial rights are being challenged, as Indigenous Peoples did engage in trade. edited to add link

Go research it yourself (for a change) and bring evidence. Your opinions aren't worth a plugged nickel to me! Alternatively, just continue in your rose-coloured eurocentric illusions. Makes absolutely no difference to me.

Something like ... Yes, I believe that because 1) The Pope ordered it. 2) There was no such thing as a war crime then, and 3) I understand the King of England got into the act too, claiming "divine right". Go read the Doctrines of Discovery. The orders are there.

If you think that was a non sequiter, I rest my case about your intellectual capacity. I don't have to prove it. The Supreme Court accepts it and I respect the law.

That's as of 1763, not 'contact'.

Point being ... Canada is subject to international law, and the SCC honours that. Also, there are mechanisms that can be used to bring pressure on Canada to uphold its international commitments. The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings). However, my point was that the Supreme Court of Canada does honour Aboriginal rights ... in law. Whether you like it or not.

Ya, and Europeans ran around shitting in the streets and carrying heads on pikes! Obviously you have a lot of reading to do to catch up with the modern era. You're so ignorant and racist you are not worth trying to educate.

How can it be? Up until now they've got NOTHING from toxic operations on their land. It can only get better. Those are the things they are negotiating, but they are entitled to some form of royalties/dividends as well - It is their land, their diamonds, their investment. If you don't agree ... take it to the Supreme Court. (You'll lose.)

It's a real shame that you are so bankrupt of intellectual capacity you are only capable of ignorant racial slurs. I think you have a better life coming ... as a dancing pig ... and we get to throw slop at YOU!

Well said! Unequal distribution of wealth ... and food ... absolutely. Corporate rule ... the purpose of which is to funnel the wealth of the many into the pockets of the greedy few. That's what causes wars and terrorism. Is it "worth it"? Thanks oleg!

What a good corporate slave you are, wulf! That's just what they want you to think. Good puppy! go get your bone and lay down now.

The other side of the story ... coming to Toronto tomorrow: Attawapiskat protesting at DeBeers office By tbnewswatch staff The Attawapiskat First Nation is pressing for a better deal from the DeBeers diamond mine near that community on the Jame Bay coast. About 50 band members travelled to Toronto to stage a protest Wednesday outside the DeBeers Canada Office. Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Hall said the wealth generated at the mines is not being distributed fairly. more ... http://www.tbnewswatch.com/News/?cid=63731 A remote fly in community, Attawapiskat is confronted with significant challenges, which it cannot remedy for lack of funding. These include an acute housing shortage, overcrowding, toxic contamination of its school and homes, and other public health and safety issues such as the failed sewage system which is backing up and requiring the mass evacuation of residents. The community is deeply concerned that only a fair and equitable distribution of wealth from the commercial mining activities in its traditional territory will permit it to address the crisis management demanded by its inadequate educational, public health, and physical infrastructure systems. more ... http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...9/19/c6187.html As I recall, this is the community that had to close its school due to fuel contamination, and Indian Affairs refused to help. Ah yes, here it is ...

The duty to uphold the honour of the Crown resides in the Supreme Court of Canada. Aboriginal rights exist where law and the Supreme Court say they do, and that's 'traditional territory' - all land the Nation occupied and used at the time of 'contact'. The Supreme Court also refers to international law in its decisions. Otherwise, the decisions could be appealed to the international courts, and they still can of course, but the SCC tries to minimize that by addressing the law appropriately. I am not talking about outright ownership as we understand it - that's Aboriginal Title. Aboriginal Rights, however, give rise to the duty of the Crown to accommodate those rights in all proposed development on all traditional territory.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the duty of the Crown to accommodate Aboriginal rights applies to all traditional Indigenous land - ie, all the land they occupied or used at the time of contact. That is all of Canada.

Nations of people with broad rights on land all across Canada. Read back a few posts. I get tired of repeating myself for you lazy non-readers.

I didn't start the thread. Show me "screaming". Never mind. Obviously you have nothing left but insults to try to make your case. How's that working for you?

No, I just said whatever diseases were available. And your evidence is ... ???

We have a strong feeling that it wasn't about lacking information: The Warden poohbah, for example, intentionally spreads misinformation. He also evaded Council to get the injunction to arrest the protesters. No, there's much more going on here than a lack of knowledge ... However, hopefully not too many councillors are in on it. We only need a few more to vote for a moratorium until after the next municipal election. It's looking good!

sooo ... how was the seal meat, benny?

Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3] "The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease Frankly, I'm distrustful of anything you say, Bill. You don't even google or wiki for basic information first. Of course that gives me the job of doing it for you to prove you wrong, but actually ... that's getting boring. So ... DoP ... I don't question your sanity, but I do also question your knowledge along with Bill's. Lack of knowledge is no sin, but failing to remedy it before putting mouth in gear is a sin of arrogance and laziness, imo. You don't think, perhaps, that after the first village died from the blankets, they might clue in? Afterall, they had 100 years clear of settlers and reporters to "vanquish" the natives, following the orders of the Pope.