Natives have right too says Canada

[Saipan]

They are allowed in certain areas to hunt without a bag limit or license

And that is the whole point.

All Eathlings should be allowed to hunt on this planet without bag limit, and licence - year 'round. NO hunting season. Same with fishing.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, there is. If I had a paper signed by some king back in dark history that I can own 55 slaves it won't be recognized anymore.

People who come to any European country to live as citizen have exactly the same right to hunt and fish as those living there since Cro-Magnon. Even if some few skinheads and so called natives moan about it.

If you can't see the difference between a treaty and what was once simply legal your an idiot. A treaty is a contract between Canada and the First Nations. The law saying you could own slaves never was.

Other races are limited inside AND outside their traditional land. Indians in Ontario are not.

Because they where smart negotiators, and other races don't have traditional land in Canada.

Hmm, your morons your problem.

Why is your stupidity my problem?

You are a fool:

R. v. Morris – Limitations on Provincial Regulation of Treaty Rights

Both the majority and the dissent in the Supreme Court of Canada confirm the following with respect to provincial regulation of treaty rights:

Then clearly it doesn't infringe upon there treaty rights. And if you had been paying attention you would know that the source I linked was put in place after the court decision that you linked. You should also have payed a bit more attention to what you linked as it says.

The key question for future cases will be whether a particular provision infringes treaty rights, in the sense that it involves "meaningful diminution" of them, or whether it instead only interferes insignificantly with such rights.

Not being able to hunt outside your traditional lands would in all likelihood constitute insignificant interference of their rights if it interfered at all. As you have yet to prove the hunting anywhere they want is in the treaties.

It also says.

As for when the modern exercise of a treaty right will be considered dangerous enough to restrict its evolution, or limit its traditional scope, both the majority and the dissent provide some guidance. Clearly the endangerment of human life is enough. Deschamps and Abella JJ. say that no treaty right allows "human lives [to be put] in danger."44 Similarly, McLachlin C.J. and Fish J. refer to "an inherent and especially elevated risk to the lives and safety of others."45 However, the endangerment of property may also be enough, at least for the majority, given Deschamps and Abella JJ.’s assertion that the Tsartlip "do not have a right to put lives or property at risk."46

Which means hunting anywhere it is dangerous to people or property is off limits to First Nation hunters.

And that is the whole point.

All Eathlings should be allowed to hunt on this planet without bag limit, and licence - year 'round. NO hunting season. Same with fishing.

I disagree if I had my way everyone would have to accept a bag limit and license. As is the First Nations negotiated the right to be able to hunt whenever they want on traditional lands.

Edited November 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Saipan]

If you can't see the difference between a treaty and what was once simply legal your an idiot.

Whenever you're losing debate try name calling

As is the First Nations negotiated the right to be able to hunt whenever they want on traditional lands.

Well your king is overruled and all the gravy train is ending by 2012. But you don't know that yet.

[charter.rights]

If you can't see the difference between a treaty and what was once simply legal your an idiot. A treaty is a contract between Canada and the First Nations. The law saying you could own slaves never was.

Because they where smart negotiators, and other races don't have traditional land in Canada.

Why is your stupidity my problem?

Then clearly it doesn't infringe upon there treaty rights. And if you had been paying attention you would know that the source I linked was put in place after the court decision that you linked. You should also have payed a bit more attention to what you linked as it says.

Not being able to hunt outside your traditional lands would in all likelihood constitute insignificant interference of their rights if it interfered at all. As you have yet to prove the hunting anywhere they want is in the treaties.

It also says.

Which means hunting anywhere it is dangerous to people or property is off limits to First Nation hunters.

I disagree if I had my way everyone would have to accept a bag limit and license. As is the First Nations negotiated the right to be able to hunt whenever they want on traditional lands.

I am fully aware of the ruling and its implications. The safety and conservation are two areas where the province (any province) must prove that infringement is justified. It does not, as you said early and clearly failed in your opinion, that provincial law can control aboriginal hunting. You were wrong, once again and guilty of trying to create fact where there is none.

In the case cited the Supreme Court ruled against the province and basically told them they cannot create laws that regulate aboriginal rights. As such even where a treaty does not exist, aboriginal right will always prevail over provincial legislation. It is only where the right cannot be established where "laws of general application" would then apply.

Actually, First Nations did not negotiate for hunting and fishing rights. They are pre-exiting aboriginal rights that cannot be abrogated or derogated - even by a treaty.

Edited November 21, 2010 by charter.rights

[Guest TrueMetis]

I am fully aware of the ruling and its implications. The safety and conservation are two areas where the province (any province) must prove that infringement is justified. It does not, as you said early and clearly failed in your opinion, that provincial law can control aboriginal hunting. You were wrong, once again and guilty of trying to create fact where there is none.

In the case cited the Supreme Court ruled against the province and basically told them they cannot create laws that regulate aboriginal rights. As such even where a treaty does not exist, aboriginal right will always prevail over provincial legislation. It is only where the right cannot be established where "laws of general application" would then apply.

Actually, First Nations did not negotiate for hunting and fishing rights. They are pre-exiting aboriginal rights that cannot be abrogated or derogated - even by a treaty.

Except the case you cited very clearly set out times when the province could regulate aboriginal hunting such as when it threatens live or property.

Aboriginal people do not have extra rights except when they gained them via treaty. Which is why they can re-negotiate these treaties and lose those rights in exchange for things.

Edited November 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shwa]

All Eathlings should be allowed to hunt on this planet without bag limit, and licence - year 'round. NO hunting season. Same with fishing.

Well... not in Canada. But you are free to hunt and fish in the meat aisle at Loblaws and Sobeys anytime you want, providing they are open. And don't skimp on your taxes either.

[charter.rights]

Except the case you cited very clearly set out times when the province could regulate aboriginal hunting such as when it threatens live or property.

Aboriginal people do not have extra rights except when they gained them via treaty. Which is why they can re-negotiate these treaties and lose those rights in exchange for things.

You might want to reread the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Aboriginal rights are inalienable and inherent. According to the S

Supreme Court aboriginal rights exist because they predate the Royal Proclamation. It has nothing to do with the treaties, except that treaties gave further recognition that rights would not be infringed upon, in the treaty area...meaning that the aboriginal rights to hunt and fish would continue to be recognized.

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 including

(a)

any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(

any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.

(15)

35. (1) The existing

aboriginal

and

treaty rights

of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

The essence of aboriginal jurisprudence is that aboriginal rights exist beyond any law or proclamation in Canada AND additional rights may be added treaties are clarified or as lands claims are settled. Aboriginal rights cannot be diminished (abrogated) ever, BUT can be added to and expanded as required.

The reality is, hunting and fishing rights were at one time a right of all peoples in N.A. Unfortunately we (meaning our ascendants) screwed it up and could not take responsibility for their own actions. Instead the government had to do it for us. And since they could do that by law, they did. Yet we do not have the same ability under aboriginal constitutional rights to diminish their right to hunt or fish. Certainly as the court case cited provided, Provincial jurisdiction can not over-ride a federally regulated Indian Act.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You know what screw it, you have fun with your fantasy land I'm done with you.

[charter.rights]

You know what screw it, you have fun with your fantasy land I'm done with you.

Very good. A sign of surrender....finally....

When you change your name and start representing who you REALLY are, then maybe we can examine your internalized bigotry from an objective position.

[g_bambino]

You know what screw it, you have fun with your fantasy land I'm done with you.

Put him on ignore, like I did. Best decision ever.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Put him on ignore, like I did. Best decision ever.

I did but his crap in the How do you stop racism thread had me ready to mentally smash him, now I remember smashing dough is pointless.

[charter.rights]

I did but his crap in the How do you stop racism thread had me ready to mentally smash him, now I remember smashing dough is pointless.

Mr. Tough Girl...ya right...

I agree that your being a dough-boy doesn't help your girlies talk at all. If you only had credibility and intelligence, then we could talk.

[Smallc]

Which means hunting anywhere it is dangerous to people or property is off limits to First Nation hunters.

Well, that isn't completely true:

http://firstnationsdrum.com/2007/01/supreme-court-recognizes-treaty-right-to-hunt-at-night/

Also, in Manitoba, aboriginals can hunt anywhere in the province...but they cannot sell or waste what they take (even though they do). Such laws have not been shot down,

[Smallc]

Aslo related to night hunting (which is never safe, and should never be allowed...but is):

"This is a situation where the hunting, despite the time of day, was legal," Karpish said. "A First Nations hunter can hunt any time they want. It's one of their hunting rights."

But Karpish said those rights don't include careless shooting.

"No matter what the treaty rights, you have to remember, everybody is accountable when you fire a firearm," she said. "They need to know what they're shooting at."

Rob Dean, Manitoba Conservation's assistant director of regional operations, said what's legal for aboriginal hunters would be illegal for regulated licenced hunters in the province.

"You can hunt a half hour before sunrise and a half hour after sunset," Dean said. "At other times, it is too dark."

Dean said during daylight hours "there's enough light to determine what your target is.

"Mistakes can happen and this shows what can happen."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/father-of-four-shot-dead-during-night-hunting-trip-80982827.html

Edited November 21, 2010 by Smallc

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well, that isn't completely true:

http://firstnationsdrum.com/2007/01/supreme-court-recognizes-treaty-right-to-hunt-at-night/

Also, in Manitoba, aboriginals can hunt anywhere in the province...but they cannot sell or waste what they take (even though they do). Such laws have not been shot down,

This is the exact case I was quoting from when I said that. The case said the hunting at night isn't necessarily dangerous. (wanna bet none of the judges have ever been hunting?)

Deschamps and Abella JJ. conceded that "it could not have been within the common intention of the parties that the Tsartlip would be granted a right to hunt dangerously, since no treaty confers on its beneficiaries a right to put human lives in danger."22 However, they added, not all night hunting is dangerous:

Much of the north of the province is uninhabited except by aboriginal people, and there are areas where even they are seen only occasionally. To conclude that night hunting with illumination is dangerous everywhere in the province does not accord with reality and is not, with respect, a sound basis for limiting the treaty right.23

So ya. Take from that what you will.

Also, in Manitoba, aboriginals can hunt anywhere in the province...but they cannot sell or waste what they take (even though they do). Such laws have not been shot down,

That doesn't sync up with this though.

It's from 2003 so maybe things have changed but it puts a few restrictions on when and where they can hunt.

[Wild Bill]

That doesn't sync up with this though.

It's from 2003 so maybe things have changed but it puts a few restrictions on when and where they can hunt.

That's interesting. There were a few cases around rural Hamilton over the past few years, after the start of the Caledonia protest. Native hunters from Six Nations were hunting deer on not only public lands but private, non-native farmers' farms. Their claim was that they were entitled to hunt whenever and wherever they wanted. Naturally, some farmers took exception. Also, the public lands were near parks where hikers and walkers were a bit disconcerted to hear the odd bullet whizzing by!

Civic officials and Six Nations council members had some talks and the problem disappeared. Obviously, the hunters were acting on their own and not sanctioned by their Council. Still, the fact that they would even do such a thing goes to their education, character and sense of safety. Again, I point out that a wise man thinks out the consequences of his actions. Only a child or someone with only the sense of a child does whatever pops into his head without thinking it through. Makes me wonder at the average age (or IQ) of those natives who initiated the Caledonia protest.

Anyhow, CR's posts have implied that natives can indeed hunt wherever or whenever they wish, including private land, unless I'm mistaken. If that's the case, your link would imply a contradiction.

If CR is right, I can't think of a better way for natives to create bad will than to waltz onto a farmer's field with no permission and start shooting. Or for police to be embarrassed if they do nothing about it, law or no law.

Perhaps the bands in Manitoba are more sensible than in Caledonia.

[charter.rights]

Well, that isn't completely true:

http://firstnationsdrum.com/2007/01/supreme-court-recognizes-treaty-right-to-hunt-at-night/

Also, in Manitoba, aboriginals can hunt anywhere in the province...but they cannot sell or waste what they take (even though they do). Such laws have not been shot down,

The laws have been shot down.

In R. v Marshall (1999) the court held that Indians could fish and sell their catch to earn a moderate income. That right has been extended to hunting or resource harvesting as well.

Marshall Summary

Provinces cannot limit aboriginal rights (even though they try) and so controls on hunting and fishing, or trying to impose licencing or quotas on aboriginal people is not enforceable. And even if there is a conservation issue under which they would like to limit hunting or fishing they must close the non-native fishery, or hunting first.

Edited November 21, 2010 by charter.rights

[Smallc]

CR is wrong as usual.

[charter.rights]

CR is wrong as usual.

Prove it. As usual, your "word" has no credibility.

I have proven via R.v Marshall what the Supreme Court of Canada has said. Are you or that pathetic faker saying that you know better?

Edited November 21, 2010 by charter.rights

[AngusThermopyle]

My kid, above, minored in computer science and is well on his way in classical philosophy. His wife is a Queens civil engineer grad who teaches ESL and counsels the abused in women's shelters. Now, if you were to question their credentials they would jam an iron ring in your face.

Do you know why they give out iron rings for engineers at a special University ritual? If you do, please explain it to me in mathematical notation.

Sorry for being so tardy in replying but I'm rather busy at this point in my life and don't have much time to waste in juvenile pursuits such as forums.

Actually yes, I do know why they present an iron ring to graduating engineers. You must keep in mind that this is a tradition of Canadian Univerities and to the best of my knowledge is not practised elsewhere. There is actually some dispute as to the root of this tradition but the generally accepted reason is to commemorate the collapse of a bridge attributable to faulty calculations. At least that is the reason I have heard most widely cited. Of note is the fact that not all the rings are Iron, I believe at least one Universitie is in the habit of issuing Stainless Steel rings, as far as I know anyway, but I wouldn't swear to that. Now your request here is rather puzzling.

Do you know why they give out iron rings for engineers at a special University ritual? If you do, please explain it to me in mathematical notation.

I'm not sure it is possible to explain the reason for this award Mathematically, verbally sure, easy enough but Mathematically, well. If it could be done I would like to see it, after all how does one use Mathematics to describe something based on sentiment, emotion and tradition, such as the giving of an award or symbol? If you meant describe the ring Mathematically you should actually say that. As such it would be pretty straight forward and simple being a function of basic Chemistry and Mathematics, Iron being Fe on the periodic table and the shape being easily described using geometric functions, you do know Pi, right?

A much better way would be to use Vector based math. Of course you know vector based don't you? Everyone knows the most common application of this math and its everyday product that the vast majority of us enjoy, right? So, in turn, why don't you inform us as to this application and explain why it would be a far better format to use?

As to the rest of your silly post about jamming iron rings up my nose. In the past I have thought that at times you made highly cogent and somewhat logical posts, no longer. In one fell swoop you have shown yourself to be nothing more than an internet blowhard with that comment. You have dropped considerably in my estimation. I now equate you with the likes of CR, congratulations.

[Saipan]

In R. v Marshall (1999) the court held that Indians could fish and sell their catch to earn a moderate income. That right has been extended to hunting or resource harvesting as well.

1) What exactly is "moderate" (in Manitoba?)

2) Liberals claimed Sustenance Hunting and fishing is not racist law and one can become Sustenance hunter disregard of race. The rule is that one has to prove his main income is from hunting, fishing, trapping etc.

When I asked if anyone but indian can legally poach in order to prove his income is from such sources I got no more replies from the (then Liberal) Minister of natural resources. Seems everyone wants to cover his ass.

And even if there is a conservation issue under which they would like to limit hunting or fishing they must close the non-native fishery, or hunting first.

1) Why is that?

2) What is non-native fishery anywhere in the world?

[Shwa]

1) What exactly is "moderate" (in Manitoba?)

Enough to sustain a typical household.

2) Liberals claimed Sustenance Hunting and fishing is not racist law and one can become Sustenance hunter disregard of race. The rule is that one has to prove his main income is from hunting, fishing, trapping etc.

When I asked if anyone but indian can legally poach in order to prove his income is from such sources I got no more replies from the (then Liberal) Minister of natural resources. Seems everyone wants to cover his ass.

Poaching, by definition, is an illegal activity. Treaty rights to hunting and fishing are not. Maybe if you had a better command of English or French, it would be helpful in obtaining replies from government officials.

1) Why is that?

2) What is non-native fishery anywhere in the world?

Since we are talking about Constitutional and Indian Treaty rights in Canada, "anywhere in the world" is ultimately irrelevant. However, if you want to get argumentative, see Exclusive Economic Zone for the Japan.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Shwa

[Saipan]

Poaching, by definition, is an illegal activity.

So how does one prove he's a Sustenance Hunter?

[charter.rights]

So how does one prove he's a Sustenance Hunter?

He holds a licence i.e. trapping, hunting.

[Saipan]

He holds a licence i.e. trapping, hunting.

That is not Sustenance Hunter by the law. Hunting licence doesn't licence you to sell game or fish.