Terrorism Charges infringe on Charter Rights

[TimG]

---

Edited July 10, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

---

Edited July 10, 2011 by TimG

[Remiel]

It has nothing to do with "superior" but only with laws of ownership.

Not true. It also has to do with democracy. The list of countries where a smaller ethnic group ruled over larger ones does not inspire confidence: Syria (Alawites), Iraq (Sunnis), Rwanda (Tutsis); and I am sure with some effort the list could be greatly expanded.

There are plenty of urban areas in Canada that are claimed by various native groups (if not all of them, possibly). It is impossible to "give back" control of these areas without either massive, unjustified displacement from built up areas (which would lead to fighting and possible war) or massive, unjustified disenfranchisement of everyone who is not the right kind of native (which would also lead to fighting and possibly war). You do not correct the suffering inflicted on millions of people by inflicting more suffering on tens of millions of people.

[Tilter]

It doesn't work that way. You obviously have no clue how they work. They will note revisit a case already decided. Their decisions overrule law and set precedent AND their decisions eventually lead to new law.

No one - least of all the Justices on the Supreme Court - care about your opinions or beliefs. They care about the law the way it is in reality, not in your fantasy.

As I said, they are always right just as you are always wrong.

The Parliament of Canada is the body that makes laws.

Any court interprets them

[jacee]

I just think there's something quite unimpressive about deferring one's position on an issue to an as of yet unrendered decision from the SCoC. Of course their ruling is quite final and binding, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue at hand, right now.

True. I was reacting to the op that seemed to present as fact something that is only as yet one side of a legal argument.

There's something quite absurd about challenging the definition of "terrorist activity" on the grounds that one's deeper moral convictions (i.e. religion) are personal characteristics upon which a person cannot be discriminated against.

It remains to be seen whether his actions are a true reflection of his religion, or the distortions of a fanatic. That element of the trial may prove informative.

I believe the reasoning behind the classification of a crime as "terroristic" is to give extra gravity to the crime, and with it more severe consequences.

Mind you, I don't see much utility in classifying crimes as "terroristic" or not from a legal standpoint. But hey, if the government wants to send a message that there is something particularly egregious about crimes and attempted crimes informed by religious/ideological perspectives, good for them.

I think with terrorism charges, the issue is not how the crimes are motivated (as with hate crimes) but that the crimes are against the state - attempts to bring down the existing order. I believe that's the rationale for including anarchists in the 'terrorist' category, but not Mohawks who, while they seek justice from the state, do not seek its demise. (Big booboo by the cops there, and big apology.)

[Bob]

It remains to be seen whether his actions are a true reflection of his religion, or the distortions of a fanatic. That element of the trial may prove informative.

I really hate when people say this. You're acting as if there is a certain true version of Islam, and that those who espouse Jihadi philosophy and scream Allahu Akbhar as they shoot up a US Marine barracks are adhering to "distortions" of the Islamic faith, and are not being in-line to the "true reflections" of the religion. How exactly do we determine which is the true version and which isn't? It's not like Islamism is some kind of fringe philosophy, it's quite prevalent - from the Abu Hamza Al-Masris, Anwar Al-Awlakis, and Osama bin Ladens of the world, to the James Zogbys, Mohammed El-Masrys, and Abdul Raoufs... support for Jihad/Islamism against perceived "Western Imperialism" is quite mainstream.

I have no difficulty in acknowledging that we can have a good man and a bad man, both quite different, yet both Muslims and practising "real" Islam. It seems like you're one of those people who can't bring yourself to acknowledge systemic flaws in cultures or societies, lest some idiot call you a "racist". Therefore, the 9/11 mass murderers weren't real Muslims. It'd be like me saying Baruch Goldstein wasn't a real Jew.

[cybercoma]

You know, to my ear, "peasant" does not sound particularly different from "savage". And any argument that makes use of it is not going to be particularly better than the ones that relied on the latter term.

Peasant in this context is not derogatory. It's who they were looking for to populate the West.

[Bob]

Peasant in this context is not derogatory. It's who they were looking for to populate the West.

Perhaps this is one of the problems with ideologues, they can't grasp nuance. "Peasant" and "savage" are clearly two distinct terms, with clearly distinct meanings and connotations. How can you have a discussion with someone who so readily substitutes words with incorrectly perceived synonyms? There is nothing more useless and boring than having a discussion with a person who reads things that weren't written, or hears things that weren't said. The next step of this insanity is when these types of people connect the dots that aren't there, know what I mean? It invariably leads to strawman argumentation.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

Perhaps this is one of the problems with ideologues, they can't grasp nuance. "Peasant" and "savage" are clearly two distinct terms, with clearly distinct connotations. How can you have a discussion with someone who so readily substitutes words with incorrectly perceived synonyms? There is nothing more useless and boring than having a discussion with a person who reads things that weren't written, or hears things that weren't said. The next step of this insanity is when these types of people connect the dots that aren't there, know what I mean? It invariably leads to strawman argumentation.

To be fair, language is limited. Words are not just what they denote, but carry the baggage of connotation. Peasant is sometimes used to mean something similar to savage, but I think that might be a poor choice of word. The point is that peasant can be derogatory, but here it isn't.

[Bob]

To be fair, language is limited. Words are not just what they denote, but carry the baggage of connotation. Peasant is sometimes used to mean something similar to savage, but I think that might be a poor choice of word. The point is that peasant can be derogatory, but here it isn't.

I'll say it again, peasant and savage are two very distinct terms. They mean different things and are NOT synonyms. It's not even close. I cannot fathom why you are trying to defend a blatant misrepresentation of the English language. Peasant may carry a negative connotation in certain contexts, but it isn't the same negative connotation as savage

Do I really need to go to dictionary.com and copy-paste the definitions? Be serious.

[cybercoma]

Settle down, Bob. You're going to have an aneurysm.

[TimG]

Peasant in this context is not derogatory. It's who they were looking for to populate the West.

The writer choose the word purposefully in order to be derogatory. The fact that it could have an non-derogatory meaning is irrelevent - the intent in this case is clear.

[cybercoma]

The writer choose the word purposefully in order to be derogatory. The fact that it could have an non-derogatory meaning is irrelevent - the intent in this case is clear.

The Canadian government was looking for European peasants to populate the West. That's not derogatory. It's a historical fact. They gave Native land away to peasants, so they could make it "productive" by farming it.

[Remiel]

Perhaps this is one of the problems with ideologues, they can't grasp nuance. "Peasant" and "savage" are clearly two distinct terms, with clearly distinct meanings and connotations. How can you have a discussion with someone who so readily substitutes words with incorrectly perceived synonyms? There is nothing more useless and boring than having a discussion with a person who reads things that weren't written, or hears things that weren't said. The next step of this insanity is when these types of people connect the dots that aren't there, know what I mean? It invariably leads to strawman argumentation.

Are you so very sure that you are correctly grasping the nuance? I do not think I would be mistaken to suggest that the word "savage" when used to describe Native Canadians and Americans is subtlely different than many other ordinary uses of the word. That is, for instance, how we came to have such concepts as "noble savage" , which would pretty much be an oxymoron paired with many dictionary definitions of "savage" , yet it has distinct meaning in certain contexts.

It should be obvious to anyone that my comparison of the use of "peasant" and "savage" was a comparison of the way in which the have historically been used to condescendingly label classes of people thought of as being socially and mentally inferior.

The Canadian government was looking for European peasants to populate the West. That's not derogatory. It's a historical fact. They gave Native land away to peasants, so they could make it "productive" by farming it.

For the sake of argument, let us run with this possible interpretation. The question becomes "What evidence is their supporting the claim that it specifically meant farmers from the social class once referred to as "peasants?" The main evidence for this argument is the "giving away" could clearly refer to settlement of the West, in particularly the Prairies. However, the language of the post did not seem limited to farmland. He said "resources", which I think was meant broadly to include lumber, minerals, and that sort of thing; stuff that was not the purview of the sort of peasants you think he was referring to. And given the general tone, even if he was referring to actually peasants, there is nothing preventing it from being a sort of elitist insult.

[cybercoma]

For the sake of argument, let us run with this possible interpretation. The question becomes "What evidence is their supporting the claim that it specifically meant farmers from the social class once referred to as "peasants?" The main evidence for this argument is the "giving away" could clearly refer to settlement of the West, in particularly the Prairies. However, the language of the post did not seem limited to farmland. He said "resources", which I think was meant broadly to include lumber, minerals, and that sort of thing; stuff that was not the purview of the sort of peasants you think he was referring to. And given the general tone, even if he was referring to actually peasants, there is nothing preventing it from being a sort of elitist insult.

The letters from the government to Eastern European nations asking for their "peasants" to come and settle the West is evidence enough, I would think. And I'm pretty sure it carries a negative tone, since First Nation's land was stolen from them and given away to Europeans and Americans to be developed in a way that may not have been what the First Nations aspired to for that land. You have to realize that a war was not fought over this land. People simply showed up and claimed it as their own. Treaties were drafted to keep the Native resistance to a minimum, but they were never honoured. So in this case, yeah there's a negative tone towards peasants, but it has nothing to do with them being peasants because that's what they were. It has everything to do with the benefits they received at the expense of the First Nations.

[cybercoma]

If you want to read more about Canada's focus on European peasant settlers as they tried filling the interior of the nation, I believe it was Clifford Sifton under Laurier that did most of the "recruiting", so to speak.

[Remiel]

You have to realize that a war was not fought over this land.

I do realize that a war was not fought over this land. This point comes up a lot in these debates. But what is utterly perplexing is the implication that the settlers were worse people for not waging war. What kind of perverse system suggests that it is less moral to not kill people before taking their stuff?

[Chippewa]

Are you so very sure that you are correctly grasping the nuance? I do not think I would be mistaken to suggest that the word "savage" when used to describe Native Canadians and Americans is subtlely different than many other ordinary uses of the word. That is, for instance, how we came to have such concepts as "noble savage" , which would pretty much be an oxymoron paired with many dictionary definitions of "savage" , yet it has distinct meaning in certain contexts.

It should be obvious to anyone that my comparison of the use of "peasant" and "savage" was a comparison of the way in which the have historically been used to condescendingly label classes of people thought of as being socially and mentally inferior.

For the sake of argument, let us run with this possible interpretation. The question becomes "What evidence is their supporting the claim that it specifically meant farmers from the social class once referred to as "peasants?" The main evidence for this argument is the "giving away" could clearly refer to settlement of the West, in particularly the Prairies. However, the language of the post did not seem limited to farmland. He said "resources", which I think was meant broadly to include lumber, minerals, and that sort of thing; stuff that was not the purview of the sort of peasants you think he was referring to. And given the general tone, even if he was referring to actually peasants, there is nothing preventing it from being a sort of elitist insult.

The word "Savage" can be used in the same context in historical references, such as the "Savage, Terrorists" who forced First Nations into Residential Schools, Internment Camps, were simply the "Peasent" immigrants who thought that Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing was the way of there "Savage God Jesis Christ". This "Savage" of a god "JEses Christ" tought local savages that it was o.k to murder, and with brutal and process tatics such as "Scalping", for the purpose of profiting for each scalp. This also allow for local peasents to steal, launder, and sell stolen land, and resources. This savage history, of rape, torture, and genocide, by peasent immigrants will go down in history as one of the worst momements in World History.

The continued savagery of the Canadian Government to oppress First Nations, through Canada's version of the Aparthied Act (INdian Act), continues to allow immigrant peasents to proceed to infringe on aboriginal rights, and treaties. The brutal savage canadian government, and churches haven't been put to justice by any justice system in the world. In a lot of sense, the First Nations were just like the Jews in Germany. The world never went to help the Jews from Hitlers oppressive, and savage ways, but the world simply went out to help another white man country like Polland, England ext, and only ever used the Jews for an excuss afterwords. The only difference, nobody in the world will help First Nations, and never have. Which is why all First Nations reserves are 3rd world country conditions inside of a 1st world country "Canada."

The Terrorist Canadian GOvernment has cut down Education Funding, and choose to break another Treaty Right, and become Political, and Economic Terrorist at the same time. The fact they can spend billions of immigrants from around the world, and oppress the First Nations at the same time, speaks volumes as to the Terrorist ways of Canada.

Plan seems simple.

Keep first Nations non educated.

Keep First Nations politically oppressed

Keep First Nations in 3rd world ghettos

Keep First Nations out of the economy with the "Indian Act"

Keep First Nations under the Indian Act

Keep First Nations from getting land they own back.

Keep First Nations in Prison

Keep First Nations under funded in every social program

Keep First Nations on a reserve so that Peasent Immigrants may buy up stolen property without proper ownership.

[Tilter]

The word "Savage" can be used in the same context in historical references, such as the "Savage, Terrorists" who forced First Nations into Residential Schools, Internment Camps, were simply the "Peasent" immigrants who thought that Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing was the way of there "Savage God Jesis Christ". This "Savage" of a god "JEses Christ" tought local savages that it was o.k to murder, and with brutal and process tatics such as "Scalping", for the purpose of profiting for each scalp. This also allow for local peasents to steal, launder, and sell stolen land, and resources. This savage history, of rape, torture, and genocide, by peasent immigrants will go down in history as one of the worst momements in World History.

The continued savagery of the Canadian Government to oppress First Nations, through Canada's version of the Aparthied Act (INdian Act), continues to allow immigrant peasents to proceed to infringe on aboriginal rights, and treaties. The brutal savage canadian government, and churches haven't been put to justice by any justice system in the world. In a lot of sense, the First Nations were just like the Jews in Germany. The world never went to help the Jews from Hitlers oppressive, and savage ways, but the world simply went out to help another white man country like Polland, England ext, and only ever used the Jews for an excuss afterwords. The only difference, nobody in the world will help First Nations, and never have. Which is why all First Nations reserves are 3rd world country conditions inside of a 1st world country "Canada."

The Terrorist Canadian GOvernment has cut down Education Funding, and choose to break another Treaty Right, and become Political, and Economic Terrorist at the same time. The fact they can spend billions of immigrants from around the world, and oppress the First Nations at the same time, speaks volumes as to the Terrorist ways of Canada.

Plan seems simple.

Keep first Nations non educated.

Keep First Nations politically oppressed

Keep First Nations in 3rd world ghettos

Keep First Nations out of the economy with the "Indian Act"

Keep First Nations under the Indian Act

Keep First Nations from getting land they own back.

Keep First Nations in Prison

Keep First Nations under funded in every social program

Keep First Nations on a reserve so that Peasent Immigrants may buy up stolen property without proper ownership.

The people that are fulfilling these 9 criteria are in fact the people who call themselves the "leaders" of the First nation peoples. These are the people who deny any authority the right to audit the very overgenerous funds that Canada supplies for the First Nation peoples & that are being misused bu these same leaders. Figures have been published that many of these leaders feel that they are worthy of wages far in excess of the Prime Minister of Canada or in fact the President of the US. The schools & housing that are a part of the wrongs of which you speak are neglected by the leaders & the general population thus requiring more upkeep than much larger institutions maintained by "non-native" populations.

Let the First Nation people clean house & get honest leadership & these wrongs will all be righted at no further expense to the taxpaying population of Canada.

[Chippewa]

The people that are fulfilling these 9 criteria are in fact the people who call themselves the "leaders" of the First nation peoples. These are the people who deny any authority the right to audit the very overgenerous funds that Canada supplies for the First Nation peoples & that are being misused bu these same leaders. Figures have been published that many of these leaders feel that they are worthy of wages far in excess of the Prime Minister of Canada or in fact the President of the US. The schools & housing that are a part of the wrongs of which you speak are neglected by the leaders & the general population thus requiring more upkeep than much larger institutions maintained by "non-native" populations.

Let the First Nation people clean house & get honest leadership & these wrongs will all be righted at no further expense to the taxpaying population of Canada.

So what does anything have to with the subject of terrorism?

Im not sure you no what you are talking about. This is about 505 Billion profit, or trillions of dollars in stolen resources such as oil, gold, and any other resource, should about cover the 7 billion dollar bill. I think reverting the subject of how much a person gets paid is off the subject of how terrorism has applied to First Nations, and how it has affected them.

If you know anything about how funds work on a reserve, the Government a lots money to social programs. This is still no reason to keep over 120 First Nations communities without clean water, and a chance at a healthy life. This is either one of the worse tainted water plots to kill First Nations with dirty water, or its just more of the same attitude First Nations face every day. And another Terrorist Plot to kill pretty much endangered species Language, Culture, and Way of life.

First Nations has every right to all the tax dollars. They were never defeated in any war, they never surrendered any of there rights. If an International Court was to ever hear both sides of the Case, it would show that through Genocide, Theivery, and Immigration, that First Nations were being denied the right to a culture, heritage, and way of life. Not long ago baby thiefs called the Church was going around and abducting children from there homes without ever telling the parents. Not even Al Jahid or other Terrorist organizations have ever went to the extent of making oppressive laws, and become baby killers by intent, and precision.

[TimG]

Im not sure you no what you are talking about. This is about 505 Billion profit, or trillions of dollars in stolen resources such as oil, gold, and any other resource, should about cover the 7 billion dollar bill.

No resources were stolen. Canada is sovereign and had the authority to grant licenses to whom it wished. In return, the companies paying royalties funded services which Canada delivered to all citizens including first nations.

First Nations has every right to all the tax dollars. They were never defeated in any war, they never surrendered any of there rights. If an International Court was to ever hear both sides of the Case

That is were you are wrong. The key part of sovereignty is NOT the defeat in war but the ability to maintain control over your territory. Native groups have not maintained control over their territory for hundreds of years and therefore no longer have an sovereignty. A formal surrender in a war is irrelevant.

Lastly, you are proving that what natives really want is the re-establishment of the fuedal system with natives as the land lords. Taxes are collected to deliver services. They are NOT profit that the government is entitled to receive.

Edited July 11, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

No resources were stolen. Canada is sovereign and had the authority to grant licenses to whom it wished. In return, the companies paying royalties funded services which Canada delivered to all citizens including first nations.

That is were you are wrong. The key part of sovereignty is NOT the defeat in war but the ability to maintain control over your territory. Native groups have not maintained control over their territory for hundreds of years and therefore no longer have an sovereignty. A formal surrender in a war is irrelevant.

Lastly, you are proving that what natives really want is the re-establishment of the fuedal system with natives as the land lords. Taxes are collected to deliver services. They are NOT profit that the government is entitled to receive.

Your last point seems to be the key one, Tim. At least as far as native spokesmen on this board have articulated, they DO want to just become landlords!

They complain about a lack of education as if there are armed guards blocking them out of schools! They don't have an education because they CHOOSE not to go to school!

They never talk about developing land themselves. Never erecting their own skyscrapers. Never constructing their own municipal water and sewer systems. Rather, they simply feel the white man OWES them the money for these things and they can sit back and get someone ELSE to design and build them!

In other words, they are no longer makers but rather takers. As P T Barnum once said: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds!"

I just can't respect that kind of attitude. I don't respect the previous owner of my house, because he was too lazy to read a book about how to do his own wiring and plumbing so he did it like an idiot! I've lost respect for Canada, for wanting to have a military force for free. I've lost respect for the Americans, since Obama took them out of the space industry while claiming that American will always be in the lead. How he figures that will work is beyond me. The only way America could stay in the lead with that approach is if every other country dropped out!

So you can imagine how much respect I give to a people that want sovereignty for free! They could try armed warfare to politically be given sovereignty but if they expect to develop it for themselves by hiring off-reserve contractors like the Saudis do they will be very disappointed with the results.

Lots of folks can drive a car. Far fewer can build a car. VERY few can invent a car! You cannot have a vibrant, growing society with only the first two.

[Chippewa]

Your last point seems to be the key one, Tim. At least as far as native spokesmen on this board have articulated, they DO want to just become landlords!

They complain about a lack of education as if there are armed guards blocking them out of schools! They don't have an education because they CHOOSE not to go to school!

They never talk about developing land themselves. Never erecting their own skyscrapers. Never constructing their own municipal water and sewer systems. Rather, they simply feel the white man OWES them the money for these things and they can sit back and get someone ELSE to design and build them!

In other words, they are no longer makers but rather takers. As P T Barnum once said: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds!"

I just can't respect that kind of attitude. I don't respect the previous owner of my house, because he was too lazy to read a book about how to do his own wiring and plumbing so he did it like an idiot! I've lost respect for Canada, for wanting to have a military force for free. I've lost respect for the Americans, since Obama took them out of the space industry while claiming that American will always be in the lead. How he figures that will work is beyond me. The only way America could stay in the lead with that approach is if every other country dropped out!

So you can imagine how much respect I give to a people that want sovereignty for free! They could try armed warfare to politically be given sovereignty but if they expect to develop it for themselves by hiring off-reserve contractors like the Saudis do they will be very disappointed with the results.

Lots of folks can drive a car. Far fewer can build a car. VERY few can invent a car! You cannot have a vibrant, growing society with only the first two.

So what does that have to do with the subject of Terrorism and how its been applied to First Nations. You want to make it a subject of Tax Dollars, and Land Ownership.

Well if you ever read the Indian Act, then you would know that current Terrorism consists of Keeping First Nations out of the Economy by not allowing them to develop there own resources. Its seems that immigrants who leave there countrys, assume that since they buy, sell, and launder stolen Land and resources, that automatically the rights of FIrst Nations are automatically depleted, because immigrants, immigrated illegally, and purchased and maintained stolen property.

The plan should be as simple as Canada. Why not immigrate by the millions into Iraq and Afgahnistan, set up resource companies, steal reasources, place the Iraq people under another version of the "Indian Act", maintain , and keep the Iraq's out of the economy, while placing all the kids in residential schools at a 50% death rate, and then blame them for all of there social and economic problems afterwords. It seems to work for Canadians.

First Nations can't even get clean water, because the immigrants have tainted all the water, and the government has the immigrants believing that since they get citizanship, its o.k to keep stealing, selling, and attempt genocide on First Nations people in Canada in over 120 First Nations communities that have contaminated water. Thats about 120 "Walkertons" across Canada.

First Nations could be saying the same thing about all the immigrants or "Canadians", that they run away from there own countrys, to squat, launder, steal, and sell stolen property and resources.

Not 1 treaty is done in any Native Languague so, the question of whether or not they are valid is another question. How can First Nations create an economy if they own less the 1% of the land. Infact, the Theives, Religious Outcasts, and Surfs that didn't get sent to Australia, ended up abviously in Canada.

The Churches should also be up on Terrorism Charges, they were responsible for moving Nazi Warcriminals, and helping Canada experiment on First Nations Children through Residential School.

If you are wondering about school. The government just dropped 127 million dollars from the education fund, and only fund till the children are 16 years old. Thats not exactly free schooling. If it was immigrants, the funding should have increased that amount. So the new terrorist plot by the government is to ensure that First Nations are never educated, underfunded, and never know there real Aboriginal and Treatie Rights.

[cybercoma]

I like Chippewa's zeal. Keep holding them accountable.

Edited July 12, 2011 by cybercoma

[Saipan]

First Nations can't even get clean water, because the immigrants have tainted all the water

Too much alcohol in it, and it shows.

First Nations could be saying the same thing about all the immigrants or "Canadians", that they run away from there own countrys, to squat, launder, steal, and sell stolen property and resources.

First nations did it to indians, and aboriginals and natives ever since they came from Asia. As recently as 180 years ago Ojibway exterminated Lakotas from Minnesota Red Lake region, using white men's advanced repeating rifles.

How can First Nations create an economy if they own less the 1% of the land.

How did other races who came with nothing? Take Korean couple for example that started washing dishes, barely speaking the language, and in two decades sent their children to university and own grocery store.

Compare to "first nation": free post secondary education (but never making it there) speaking the language, unable to fix even their own plumbing. And constantly moaning that others races owe them living.