Racism on the reserve

[charter.rights]

That is absurd and untrue. I've never seen it or even heard of it taking place. If these natives thought that they coud do it they would've done it by now. So I call bs.

Trent University just this past week had a pipe ceremony in its one of its main rooms. I used to attend a native circle where native elders would hold a pipe ceremony (on a regular basis) in a public school gymnasium. Smudging and pipe ceremonies are protected aboriginal rights and cannot be limited by law, smoking laws, fire laws or otherwise.

[Mr.Canada]

Trent University just this past week had a pipe ceremony in its one of its main rooms. I used to attend a native circle where native elders would hold a pipe ceremony (on a regular basis) in a public school gymnasium. Smudging and pipe ceremonies are protected aboriginal rights and cannot be limited by law, smoking laws, fire laws or otherwise.

So 25 or w/e natives can just walk into U of T in the middle of a lecture. Goto the front and start their circle and start smoking?

Security will do nothing but watch. Is this what you're sayng?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[charter.rights]

So 25 or w/e natives can just walk into U of T in the middle of a lecture. Goto the front and start their circle and start smoking?

Security will do nothing but watch. Is this what you're sayng?

Yup.

They can't do anything but watch. If they did there would be a human rights lawsuit against them and plenty of lawyers to take the lead.

[Moonbox]

Yup.

They can't do anything but watch. If they did there would be a human rights lawsuit against them and plenty of lawyers to take the lead.

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.

[charter.rights]

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.

There wasn't room in the Lobby so the front lawn had to do.

Ceremony marks 1st anniversary of residential school apology

And it would be incredibly stupid to hold a pipe ceremony in the middle of a baseball game...duh. You could get hit with a ball...

But it does happen at public schools and is supported by them.

"This Thursday is a very important day for Feehan's aboriginal community, as we host the Saskatoon West Intertribal Traditional Powwow. The community is welcome to come out to celebrate at E.D. Feehan. The day will start with a pancake breakfast for the community at 8 a.m., followed by the pipe ceremony at 9 a.m. The grand entry will begin at 10 and the grand exit at 2:30 p.m. School groups are welcome with concessions and artisans on site; dancers and drummers will receive a small honorarium. Thank you to the other sponsors, Mount Royal Collegiate, and the community schools Pleasant Hill, Princess Alexandra, St. Maria Goretti, St. Michael and Westmount. For more information, please don't hesitate to contact Carla at 659-7563."

Here.

Edited March 4, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

Limp dodge. And slightly delusional since it purports to speak for "self-interested human beings."

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.

Not only does he speak for self-interested human beings, Canadians, now he is speaking on behalf of "human nature."

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.

The rule of law does not count for anything in Moonbox's little world. A petulant little Napolean who is going to conquer the world with his "logic" of normal, self interested human beings.

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.

On the other hand, it is nice to see that they are allowing the patients in the psych ward to have access to the Internet. They shouldn't be deprived. It's only delusion after all.

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.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

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...thinking is 'hard' 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.

What an incredible dodge. Why not try backing up you opinions with fact instead of relying on a limited viewpoint on an issue you know little to nothing about. I have provided proof and fact an in any court of "reason" that far outweighs your subjective self-indulgent opinions.

[Mr.Canada]

Moonbox, Shwa is a left wing version of me don't give in.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[charter.rights]

Moonbox, Shwa is a left wing version of me don't give in.

Right! Moonbox. Don't give in to fact, truth and jurisprudence. Instead use your opinion more forcefully and hopefully no one will notice...Good advice.

[Moonbox]

But it does happen at public schools and is supported by them.

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.

[Mr.Canada]

Right! Moonbox. Don't give in to fact, truth and jurisprudence. Instead use your opinion more forcefully and hopefully no one will notice...Good advice.

I enjoy how you choose which laws to ignore and which must be upheld. I also like the way you have contempt and little use for our system then use it to exploit and further your goals.

Hypocrisy.

[charter.rights]

I enjoy how you choose which laws to ignore and which must be upheld. I also like the way you have contempt and little use for our system then use it to exploit and further your goals.

Hypocrisy.

What do you think the Government and lawyers do for a living. They use the law to their benefit. And when they can't they go to the extra measure of stalling, ignoring, obfuscating and denying. The law isn't just my opinion. It is supported by numerous rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada. That is why opinionated denials are silly.

[Moonbox]

The law isn't just my opinion. It is supported by numerous rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada. That is why opinionated denials are silly.

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.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

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.

Wrong. Go look up a fact and then come back with to discuss. Your opinions are worthless.

[Mr.Canada]

.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Moonbox]

Wrong. Go look up a fact and then come back with to discuss. Your opinions are worthless.

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.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

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.

Still waiting for you to bring a fact forward.

[Moonbox]

Still waiting for you to bring a fact forward.

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.

[Shwa]

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

Hey Lunebox, I have asked you a direct question regarding Canadian law with regard to the ownership of the land you live on and all you can reply with is ineffectual tripe that has ripened a little too long.

Weak, unintelligible and intellectually deficient. Who said anything about "millions" having to give up their homes? You did. As if people are supposed to try and answer your delusional scenarios. You have built yourself a pretty nice comfy castle in the sky and pretty soon you will be citing your authority as coming directly from God. You know, the source of those voices you hear in your head.

[Shwa]

Still waiting for you to bring a fact forward.

I believe you are going to be waiting a long time. Lunebox doesn't appear to have the intellectual capacity for facts.

[Moonbox]

Hey Lunebox, I have asked you a direct question regarding Canadian law with regard to the ownership of the land you live on and all you can reply with is ineffectual tripe that has ripened a little too long.

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....

Lunebox doesn't appear to have the intellectual capacity for facts.

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?

[charter.rights]

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?

Still waiting for you to present a fact.

[Moonbox]

Still waiting for you to present a fact.

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.

[Hydraboss]

Take the smoking law for example. Smoking is prohibited in public places in Ontario, right? Nope. Native people can hold a pipe ceremony and burn tobacco in any room in any building anywhere in Canada and there is nothing that can be done to prohibit it. So Article 1 really is meaningless where it concerns aboriginal rights.

Bullshit. The two bingo halls in my town are loaded with indians almost every day of the week. Funny thing though, they're outside smoking instead of inside the "no smoking" establishment. Same as the bars/lounges. That's right....outside right beside the white guys and yellow guys and brown guys.......

You'd think at least ONE of these "brave warriors" would have the wherewithal to start a Charter challenge (or a "Great Law" challenge) against their right to smoke while drinking and playing bingo. Guess they must be cowards.

[charter.rights]

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.

Unfortunately it is you who is not here for discussion. I am willing to discuss the issue at length and as the rule of this forum state, I have provided links and references. You on the other hand have yet to post a relevant fact as you have been requested on a number of occassion so that we can advance the discussion on the basis of facts. Yet all you come with is petty opinions not based on facts or evidence but your own feelings, your delusion that you speak for all Canadians, or all of humanity.

When you come up with a fact, then we'll discuss further. However, as long as you try to substitute your opinions without any basis on the facts, then discussion is at a dead end.

So 'll just wait until you post a fact before we go any further. I don't think you are capable, or more probably there are no facts to back your opinions up with.