Racism on the reserve

[charter.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.

Ah....there is a difference between smoking and holding a pipe ceremony and burning sacred tobacco.. Too bad you were so intent on making an argument instead of properly reading into the discussion. The point has obviously gone way over your head.

Edited March 5, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

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.

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.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

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.

That's a good fact to start with. Too bad you didn't go any further. I've already presented and dealt with Section 25 and 35 of the Charter which says that no other right can "abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights" and then used an example of a pipe ceremony being held in a public place.

So your fact is a moot point that has already been countered, and dismissed as irrelevent.Try again though. It makes for good discussion.

Edited March 5, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

So your fact is a moot point that has already been countered, and dismissed as irrelevent.Try again though. It makes for good discussion.

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.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

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.

Go look up the term "inter-jurisdictional immunity". It is a constitutional application which renders most provincial laws not applicable. You know...the "reasonable limits" prescribed by the province have no bearing on First Nations. That is "a fact" supported by and prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It provides the basis behind the inability of provinces to regulate or control native hunting and fishing. Their rights exceed the jurisdiction of the provinces.

"You've decided that Sections 25 and 35 are to be held above the rest. Unfortunately, there are many who disagree."

I've decided nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court of Canada has. There is sufficient jurisprudence in R. v. Sparrow, Gladstone, Delgamuukw, Powley, Marshall, Mitchell, Gladue that clearly point to Section 25 and 35 aboriginal rights as being outside of domestic law, and above the "reasonable limits" prescribed in Section 1. It is the Supreme Court of Canada who continues to reinforce the notion that the 1763 Royal Proclamation rights stand above all other rights and law. It is also the reason that the Canadian Revenue Agency, the Canadian Border Services Agency, the RCMP etc are unwilling to take on natives over the exercise of their rights - for fear that if and probably when they lose, their bullying tactics will no longer work and they too will be force to comply with "The Law".

And then there is the who issue of surrender and land rights extending beyond the treaties that were made in some cases 130 years ago, which only now the Supreme Court has rendered government opinions useless. Why do you think that is? It is because the SCoC has determined that unless surrenders and treaties fulfilled the entire requirement of the Royal Proclamation 1763 they are not valid. It is the reason that most of Canada will eventually be subject to some land claim settlement. many First Nations are content to take the money and run. But Six Nations people are not so easy and will hold out for land - which is being returned in bits and pieces as we speak. Those are the facts.

"Unfortunately, there are many who disagree."

Sorry honey, you aren't many. If you have a fact to back this up then present but don't make a silly statement and expect us to accept it.

[Moonbox]

Go look up the term "inter-jurisdictional immunity". It is a constitutional application which renders most provincial laws not applicable. You know...the "reasonable limits" prescribed by the province have no bearing on First Nations. That is "a fact" supported by and prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

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.

I've decided nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court of Canada has. There is sufficient jurisprudence in R. v. Sparrow, Gladstone, Delgamuukw, Powley, Marshall, Mitchell, Gladue that clearly point to Section 25 and 35 aboriginal rights as being outside of domestic law, and above the "reasonable limits" prescribed in Section 1.

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.

It is the Supreme Court of Canada who continues to reinforce the notion that the 1763 Royal Proclamation rights stand above all other rights and law.

They've done no such thing.

It is also the reason that the Canadian Revenue Agency, the Canadian Border Services Agency, the RCMP etc are unwilling to take on natives over the exercise of their rights - for fear that if and probably when they lose, their bullying tactics will no longer work and they too will be force to comply with "The Law".

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.

It is the reason that most of Canada will eventually be subject to some land claim settlement.

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.

Sorry honey, you aren't many. If you have a fact to back this up then present but don't make a silly statement and expect us to accept it.

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.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Moonbox

[Shwa]

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

Another weak dodge from a tactless boor on the fringe whose only accomplishment is in taking themselves for granted. No requirement for proof, when simple persistence will do. Close your eyes, click your heels three times and repeat yourself. Eventually you'll land back in Kansas Dorothy.

[charter.rights]

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.

Thanks for proving my point by defeating your own.

For Canadians - whether it is gun laws, hunting licenses or special tags for various game - there are limits (which society deems reasonable) on where, how and when hunting can occur.

The only reason it is "reasonable" for First Nations not to have to comply with the law is Section 25 & 35, which provides that their aboriginal right to hunt and fish extends beyond our charter rights. Their Charter right exceeds the reasonable limits that are place on us when hunting and fishing.

[Smallc]

Yes, and it would also be unreasonable for the Government of Canada to have to pay trillions of dollars. It ain't happening, so deal with it.

[Moonbox]

Thanks for proving my point by defeating your own.

Honestly...I think something is tripped up in your brain because you're just repeating yourself and not processing anything else anyone is saying.

For Canadians - whether it is gun laws, hunting licenses or special tags for various game - there are limits (which society deems reasonable) on where, how and when hunting can occur.

Yes. I know that. Thanks for that little tidbit.

The only reason it is "reasonable" for First Nations not to have to comply with the law is Section 25 & 35, which provides that their aboriginal right to hunt and fish extends beyond our charter rights. Their Charter right exceeds the reasonable limits that are place on us when hunting and fishing.

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.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Another weak dodge from a tactless boor on the fringe whose only accomplishment is in taking themselves for granted. No requirement for proof, when simple persistence will do. Close your eyes, click your heels three times and repeat yourself. Eventually you'll land back in Kansas Dorothy.

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.

[groupeii]

Yeah cause the Canadian government doesn't control citizenship, immigration and residence within Canada. So suddently the natives arn't allowed to tell people who arn't part of their band they can't live there anymore. When was the last time someone wasn't allowed to live in Canada because they wern't Canadian?

remember that french guy who couldnt' become Canadian because his daughter was disabled. All disabled people get out is what immigration said. How is this any different.

[g_bambino]

Section 1 of the Charter applies to EVERYONE and everything in Canada.

Ah, but here exactly is where you're going to butt heads with CR: he doesn't believe First Nations are in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

Ah, but here exactly is where you're going to butt heads with CR: he doesn't believe First Nations are in Canada.

Funny though....most first nation reserves have canadian postal codes...and while it costs more to mail outside of Canada, it doesn't cost more to mail to a first nation reserve.

[Moonbox]

Ah, but here exactly is where you're going to butt heads with CR: he doesn't believe First Nations are in Canada.

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.

[charter.rights]

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.

No, sunshine. You are still defeating your own argument.

Rights in the Charter are not "given" to aboriginal people, they are "recognized". An as "recognized" rights section 1 is not applicable.

Perhaps you should give it a rest. If all you have is ad hominen, then there is no sense your going on. While you are off go to the Supreme Court of Canada website and read all the pertinent rulings. You'll easily see where I am coming if you do the proper research.

[M.Dancer]

If all you have is ad hominen

For someone who accuses others of using ad hominens so much, I wonder if you truly understand what it means or if you feel that there is some treaty rights that says it doesn't apply to you.

[M.Dancer]

Sycophants like Mr. Canada simply use these kinds of forums to soothe their low self-esteem.

Mr. Canada has no defense. So doing it on his behalf would be infantile.

Narcissists hang out where they are not wanted, most the time. So his low self-esteem feeds into his "isms"

But I do care about how we as Canadians do not believe in the Charter and the rule of law. And you would be the poster boy for that deficiency.

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

I don't think you are capable, or more probably there are no facts to back your opinions up with.

for example...

[g_bambino]

Funny though....most first nation reserves have canadian postal codes...and while it costs more to mail outside of Canada, it doesn't cost more to mail to a first nation reserve.

Pfft. Obviously you know nothing of the Stinky Britches Treaty of 1804, which bans from reserves all mail from white people unless its written on bark, which Canada Post ships at a rate equivalent to domestic mail. The Supreme Court said so!

[eyeball]

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.

The courts haven't stopped governments from doing this to other people in Canada. You should take a look at how the restructuring of fishing licences and quotas have made paupers and millionaires out of thousands of people in predictably disproportionate numbers on both the East and West coasts of Canada.

Governments widen and deepen income gaps all the time.

[Moonbox]

The courts haven't stopped governments from doing this to other people in Canada. You should take a look at how the restructuring of fishing licences and quotas have made paupers and millionaires out of thousands of people in predictably disproportionate numbers on both the East and West coasts of Canada.

Governments widen and deepen income gaps all the time.

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?

[Shwa]

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.

Keep trying there Dorothy, Kansas is just up ahead! Or maybe it is a little closer that you think:

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. ...

Whoa ho, lookie here now: Mr. Lunebox is telling you that you need to back up your "empty testimonials" with references! Something he himself refuses to do on account of the threat such references would have on his tinkertoy logic.

No doubt another bigot hiding behind the hypocrite's veil. At least posters like Mr. Canada and g_bambino don't try and hide their bigotry and are at least honest about it.

Maybe Dorothy isn't the right nickname for Lunebox, maybe it should be Nancy.

[Moonbox]

Rights in the Charter are not "given" to aboriginal people, they are "recognized". An as "recognized" rights section 1 is not applicable.

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.

[charter.rights]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to post a relevant fact....

[Moonbox]

I'm still waiting for you to post a relevant fact....

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.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Moonbox