The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[charter.rights]

Biingo. charter.rights replaces facts and logics with his/her own desires, and thus creates an alternate universe where fancy and desire become reality.

Still inhaling self-generated methane I see. Whiff whiff.....

[Smallc]

The answer is yes. The question is irrelevant.

[charter.rights]

The answer is yes. The question is irrelevant.

Not at all.

Who holds the higher authority? The people or the Crown in this situation?

[Smallc]

In this situation (as in any other) the people are the Crown. it is only with the consent of the people that the Crown continues to exist and rule. Without that consent, the Crown would lack any authority or legitimacy....much like your arguments.

[Jack Weber]

Not at all.

Who holds the higher authority? The people or the Crown in this situation?

We get your opinion already...

Natives are under no obligation to recognize the laws of Canada..

They should be able to do whatever they want in the realm of self determination and the government of Canada should simply step aside...

Film at 11....

Y'know,if you go back to Bedwettercentral.ca with this you would have a bunch of willing nodders at your disposal,and you would'nt have to waste bandwidth...

[g_bambino]

The answer is yes. The question is irrelevant.

Indeed. I can only wonder at the mental gymnastics CR must put himself through in order to maintain the deluded belief that the Crown's power to expropriate property is proof that the people are divorced from the Crown. That would, of course, be the very Crown that's placed at the apex of our state by a constitution written by and re-written and supported ever since by generations of elected representatives of Canadians; the same Crown that could be removed by a vote of those same representatives elected by Canadians.

Step number one in the routine seems to be: ignore sources that are more qualified than yourself. The rest seems to be freestyle: "The treaty gives me a billion dollars! The Crown will tell the Queen to go away! I can travel anywhere I want on a Haudenosaunee passport! Crackers are made by the sky mother in my shoe! I saw a tree and a llama in a cave and they were making babies and I saw the baby and the baby looked at me!" No need to back yourself up; just create it as you go along.

[Smallc]

It seems that the only appropriate response is one I've used in the past for others - that is: my cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Jack Weber]

Indeed. I can only wonder at the mental gymnastics CR must put himself through in order to maintain the deluded belief that the Crown's power to expropriate property is proof that the people are divorced from the Crown. That would, of course, be the very Crown that's placed at the apex of our state by a constitution written by and re-written and supported ever since by generations of elected representatives of Canadians; the same Crown that could be removed by a vote of those same representatives elected by Canadians.

Step number one in the routine seems to be: ignore sources that are more qualified than yourself. The rest seems to be freestyle: "The treaty gives me a billion dollars! The Crown will tell the Queen to go away! I can travel anywhere I want on a Haudenosaunee passport! Crackers are made by the sky mother in my shoe! I saw a tree and a llama in a cave and they were making babies and I saw the baby and the baby looked at me!" No need to back yourself up; just create it as you go along.

Classic!!!!

[Moonbox]

Not at all.

Who holds the higher authority? The people or the Crown in this situation?

The argument is that, since the Crown derives its authority and legitimacy from the People, it is in fact beholden to the People to make fair and rational decisions. In the case that the Crown lost its mind and even TRIED to judge in favour of the idiotic claims you make, they would be removed from and replaced. Every single aspect of Canadian law can be rewritten. The constitution can be rewritten. New Supreme Court judges can be selected. We can remove the Queen as the Head of State. All it takes is agreement across the country. The Supreme Court knows this, and as such, rules accordingly. After all, it's the Supreme Court of CANADA -- not the Supreme Court of Give the First Nations Everything they Want.

Revolution is a tool that can and has been used in the past when the Crown does not act in the best interests of its people. That's not going to happen, however, because nothing you say the Crown will do will actually happen either.

[Shwa]

Revolution is a tool that can and has been used in the past when the Crown does not act in the best interests of its people. That's not going to happen, however, because nothing you say the Crown will do will actually happen either.

Here is where we agree, however I would modify this to say that what will happen is that the Crown will continue to expropriate real property with or without consent and hand it over to First Nations to settle land claims.

[Shwa]

Indeed. I can only wonder at the mental gymnastics CR must put himself through in order to maintain the deluded belief that the Crown's power to expropriate property is proof that the people are divorced from the Crown. That would, of course, be the very Crown that's placed at the apex of our state by a constitution written by and re-written and supported ever since by generations of elected representatives of Canadians; the same Crown that could be removed by a vote of those same representatives elected by Canadians.

You see the problem here is that you are equating an imaginative condition ("could be removed by a vote") as "proof" that the people are not divorced from the Crown. You suffer from the same delusion you are accusing CR of and that simply won't do. But that wasn't really the question was it? The question was directed to an individual. What you have done is tried to expand on that individual to be a symbolic representation of 'all.' Again, you have replaced the real specific with an imaginative condition. When someone offers you an apple, do you immediately lament the loss of the orchard?

The law is specific in that it gives the Crown the right to expropriate real property from it's citizens, whether actual individuals or corporations. If you would like to change this law, get crackin'. Report back to us on your progress. But I suspect you and your neighbours lack the power to do so. And if the Crown comes a-knocking and siezes your real property or chattel, for whatever reason, well you must readily agree to it because as soon as you set foot in Canada your rights to property are on the Crown's terms. (Since you are not "divorced" from the Crown, you would be merely agreeing with yourself)

I think this is a pretty significant legal principle don't you?

Now if you want to dream away on a revolution or civil war, well at least dreams are free. However, stay away from the US model once the imaginary war is done, because they have a thing called eminent domain.

[charter.rights]

The argument is that, since the Crown derives its authority and legitimacy from the People, it is in fact beholden to the People to make fair and rational decisions. In the case that the Crown lost its mind and even TRIED to judge in favour of the idiotic claims you make, they would be removed from and replaced. Every single aspect of Canadian law can be rewritten. The constitution can be rewritten. New Supreme Court judges can be selected. We can remove the Queen as the Head of State. All it takes is agreement across the country. The Supreme Court knows this, and as such, rules accordingly. After all, it's the Supreme Court of CANADA -- not the Supreme Court of Give the First Nations Everything they Want.

Revolution is a tool that can and has been used in the past when the Crown does not act in the best interests of its people. That's not going to happen, however, because nothing you say the Crown will do will actually happen either.

You can go on (as you have been) about "this or that COULD happen" but in reality - especially as a civil and peaceful society - there is little appetite in Canada for change, or for its more extreme revolution. Whether or not a judge COULD rule against First Nations is a moot point since judges HAVE RULED in their favour, and the jurisprudence (you know that big word that baffles you) points that they will continue to rule in their favour as well as to reinforce prior rulings, exactly as the Supreme Court of Canada is doing presently.

If you think for a second that the Constitution can be rewritten then you are sadly mistaken. It would take a military coup to inititiate something like that, since the court's prerogative (as in the Royal Prerogative) is to defend the constitution, and even if there was the will to make changes, the Courts would demand strict adherence to the amending formula contained in Part V of the Constitution Act 1982. Such an action would trigger all kinds of public and court challenges on the meaning and intent of various articles in Part V that it would likely tie up the process for 50 years.

So while theoretically the constitution can be amended pragmatically it would unlikely happen if the process was to remove a right or freedom instead of strengthening one.

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.

The Crown's job is to enforce this fundamental guarantee and right now the laws prescribing limitations for native people, including the refusals by government to acknowledge their obligations for consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation guaranteed by sections 25. and 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being thrown out of court or redefined, just as they should be in a free and democratic society.

Oh and by the way....

Aboriginal land and property rights are a guaranteed right under the Charter. Ours are not. So if the Crown was pressed to expropriate your house and give to some First Nation. there isn't a thing you can do about it. Such is the case where:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada....

These rights even trump Crown law.

Edited July 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[Smallc]

Here is where we agree, however I would modify this to say that what will happen is that the Crown will continue to expropriate real property with or without consent and hand it over to First Nations to settle land claims.

I can tell you that such a thing will not continue indefinitely. I can tell you that with certainty.

[Smallc]

The law is specific in that it gives the Crown the right to expropriate real property from it's citizens, whether actual individuals or corporations. If you would like to change this law, get crackin'. Report back to us on your progress. But I suspect you and your neighbours lack the power to do so. And if the Crown comes a-knocking and siezes your real property or chattel, for whatever reason, well you must readily agree to it because as soon as you set foot in Canada your rights to property are on the Crown's terms. (Since you are not "divorced" from the Crown, you would be merely agreeing with yourself)

It is clear that you understand no better than CR what the Crown is. The Crown acts with the consent of the people and their representatives. They don't act with the consent of you, CR, or Bambino, but rather all Canadians. If a large enough number of Canadians want something stopped....then it stops.

[Wild Bill]

Oh and by the way....

Aboriginal land and property rights are a guaranteed right under the Charter. Ours are not. So if the Crown was pressed to expropriate your house and give to some First Nation. there isn't a thing you can do about it. Such is the case where:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada....

These rights even trump Crown law.

That many or may not be true. However, what about all the huge sums of money and the expensive programs presently being given to First Nations? Are they constitutionally guaranteed? We can argue about their efficiency and the fairness of the usual distribution channel being through the chiefs but the basic point is, if enough bad feeling occurred could that money tap be turned off? Could First Nations bands survive without it?

[Moonbox]

You can go on (as you have been) about "this or that COULD happen" but in reality - especially as a civil and peaceful society - there is little appetite in Canada for change, or for its more extreme revolution.

It's a two way argument. So far small settlements here and there have been made with the government that are hardly noticeable on the provincial or federal books. That's what HAS HAPPENED and what will CONTINUE to happen. PRECEDENCE, not jurisprudence (you still don't know what that means but I'll forgive you because it's clear you've never read a page of philosophy or law), has already been set on what sort of land claim settlements we can continue to expect. They'll continue to happen as they HAVE been but not how you say (in your demented little world) they SHOULD.

Whether or not a judge COULD rule against First Nations is a moot point since judges HAVE RULED in their favour, and the jurisprudence (you know that big word that baffles you) points that they will continue to rule in their favour as well as to reinforce prior rulings, exactly as the Supreme Court of Canada is doing presently.

Keep using that word. The more you use it the less educated you look. The word you're looking for is precedence. Look it up in the dictionary. I DARE you to learn something from this discussion. Aside from that, you're right. Precedence has been set in settling native land claims. Cash and land settlements in the millions of dollars range have been made and will continue to be made. The more settlements happen like that the more that will reinforce the precedent for future rulings and the more it will ensure the hundreds of billions worth of settlements you so desire and wet your bed over will never happen.

The Crown's job is to enforce this fundamental guarantee and right now the laws prescribing limitations for native people, including the refusals by government to acknowledge their obligations for consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation guaranteed by sections 25. and 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being thrown out of court or redefined, just as they should be in a free and democratic society.

The Crown's job is to safeguard and promote the interests of ALL Canadians. I know it suits your infantile arguments to pretend that first and foremost its job is to promote only the interests of First Nations, but that's no reflection of reality.

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada....

Subject to Section 1 of the Charter (BTW thanks for quoting it so I didn't have to). The whole Charter is subject to Section 1. That's why it's Section 1, and not 25. It was written first as a preamble to the entire document to ensure that people knew that any use of the Charter to support legal arguments would have to follow the standards of fairness and justice in a DEMOCRATIC society.

If the arguments don't follow simple logic, reason and fairness, the Charter can't support them. The concepts of logic, fairness and reason are the fundamental principles of Natural Law (one of the pillars of Jurisprudence, a word you don't understand and continue to misuse) and none of your arguments thus far have passed those tests.

Please keep trying though. I'm actually REALLY fascinated by how your mind works and how the jumbled messes in your head actually end up here in writing.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Moonbox

[Shwa]

I can tell you that such a thing will not continue indefinitely. I can tell you that with certainty.

Of course not. But supposing I ask: how can you be so certain?

[charter.rights]

That many or may not be true. However, what about all the huge sums of money and the expensive programs presently being given to First Nations? Are they constitutionally guaranteed? We can argue about their efficiency and the fairness of the usual distribution channel being through the chiefs but the basic point is, if enough bad feeling occurred could that money tap be turned off? Could First Nations bands survive without it?

Yes.

[Moonbox]

Of course not. But supposing I ask: how can you be so certain?

Because we wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't allow it. Smallc wouldn't allow it. Anyone with a brain wouldn't allow it. Thus far it's only continued because the settlements have been relatively small and reasonable. If they started to get unreasonable, the Canadian people would start to care about it and do something about it.

[GostHacked]

So is all this a money grab or a land grad?

[Shwa]

It is clear that you understand no better than CR what the Crown is. The Crown acts with the consent of the people and their representatives. They don't act with the consent of you, CR, or Bambino, but rather all Canadians. If a large enough number of Canadians want something stopped....then it stops.

No bud, I understand perfectly what the Crown "is." But supposing I were to ask: at what point in the passage that you quoted do you get the impression that I don't undertstand what the Crown is. Can you point that out for me please? You know, for future so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks!

[charter.rights]

Subject to Section 1 of the Charter (BTW thanks for quoting it so I didn't have to). The whole Charter is subject to Section 1. That's why it's Section 1, and not 25. It was written first as a preamble to the entire document to ensure that people knew that any use of the Charter to support legal arguments would have to follow the standards of fairness and justice in a DEMOCRATIC society.

If the arguments don't follow simple logic, reason and fairness, the Charter can't support them. The concepts of logic, fairness and reason are the fundamental principles of Natural Law (one of the pillars of Jurisprudence, a word you don't understand and continue to misuse) and none of your arguments thus far have passed those tests.

Please keep trying though. I'm actually REALLY fascinated by how your mind works and how the jumbled messes in your head actually end up here in writing.

Logic is a delusion one keeps telling themselves. It is not a universal measure of fairness or correctness. Reason is based on the collection of prejudices and experience one has. It too does not define fairness or correctness. That is why we have laws and courts to weigh out justice. Sometimes their decision defies individual logic and reason (individual delusions and prejudices). We hear outrage at court decisions all the time and mostly they are void of facts.

Section 25 over-rides all law that conflicts with it.Silly boy, Section 1. is not primary just because it appears in first order. It is Section 1 only because it is the most general of principles. However it is preceded by a more important principle:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law....

But maybe you haven't throughly read the Constitution and missed this:

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Aboriginal Jurisprudence is a well studied philosophy of law. It is not precedent. It is jurisprudence. Maybe if you studied law you might better understand how wrong you really are in all of this. Your dreaming about natural law over-riding a constitution is about as whacky as right-wing nuts justifying murdering someone because they believe in abortion.

First Nations Jurisprudence and Aboriginal Law

"The Supreme Court of Canada has declared that the Grundnorm, or first principle, of Aboriginal rights resides in the simple fact of First Nations living in distinctive societies and cultures. These diverse spontaneous or organic orders of First Nations stretch back through the ages and provide the ultimate reason for accepting First Nations jurisprudence and law as well as the claims of Aboriginal rights. Intimately connected to First Nations jurisprudence and law, Aboriginal rights are reference points to the underlying, resourceful, and effective First Nations legal system or system of law. The processes and principles of First Nations jurisprudence and law inform right behavior and sustain Aboriginal rights; they are the vital unstated assumptions upon which Aboriginal rights are based. These processes and principles of First Nations jurisprudence transform the constitutional framework of both Eurocentric jurisprudence and Aboriginal rights."

No, we are discussing jurisprudence, not just precedent.

Now take a breath and give your brain some oxygen.

[charter.rights]

So is all this a money grab or a land grad?

Neither. It is a rights revolution.

[GostHacked]

Neither. It is a rights revolution.

So they are not after any kind of compensation other than rights? Sounds good to me.

[charter.rights]

So they are not after any kind of compensation other than rights? Sounds good to me.

Restoration of rights will naturally cause the return of property, payments for loss of use, and often penalties for abuses.