Constitutional Reform

[charter.rights]

Rights only exist as long as there are states willing to protect them. In many ways, it is our laws that allow for special aboriginal rights.

Wrong.

Aboriginal rights are different. They are not conferred by the state and are therefore outside of the state's control. Rather aboriginal rights are international human rights, recognized internationally and protected under the United Nations Charter.

As suggested by jacee, aboriginal rights are recognized by Canada, as being outside of their realm of jurisdiction.

[fellowtraveller]

Rather aboriginal rights are international human rights, recognized internationally and protected under the United Nations Charter

Only in your dreams, and only in reality to the extent that sovereign states like Canada acknowledge the UN Charter or indeed any UN undertaking as superior to Canadian law.

aboriginal rights are recognized by Canada, as being outside of their realm of jurisdiction.

Utter rubbish. The only aboriginal rights outside the juridiction of the Canadian govt are for those aboriginals outside Canada, like in Peru or Australia. Canada has not ceded jurisdiction on any Canadian citizens, including aboriginals. Edited September 4, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[charter.rights]

Only in your dreams, and only in reality to the extent that sovereign states like Canada acknowledge the UN Charter or indeed any UN undertaking as superior to Canadian law.

Utter rubbish. The only aboriginal rights outside the juridiction of the Canadian govt are for those aboriginals outside Canada, like in Peru or Australia. Canada has not ceded jurisdiction on any Canadian citizens, including aboriginals.

You need to read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms silly boy.

"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..."

Meaning, no other right or freedom in the Charter can diminish aboriginal or treaty rights.

Attacks against aboriginal people of any nation has been met with sanctions and the use of force backed by the UN Security Council. Perpetrators of genocide have been tried before the world court.

Aboriginal people are not Canadians. They are nations whom the Supreme Court has for the last 30 years been chastising and reversing the acts of government that violate aboriginal and treaty rights. The Charter holds that aboriginal rights are "recognized and affirmed". Rights are not granted by the will of the government or the will of Canadians. Aboriginal rights are rights which have been recognized and protected under the law for over 250 years. Treaties are nation to nation agreements.

[Argus]

People need to stop talking to this guy. No intelligent conversation about native rights issues is possible if you keep responding to him and letting him divert the conversation to nonsense.

[Saipan]

Everybody?

Then there's your assertion that everybody can cope with things like no money for antennas or damaged and severely dysfunctional parents by simply choosing to.

If you don't make money then you obviously can't have any.

And if you have dysfuctional family blame the government. Government should give you better one. You deserve it.

[Saipan]

"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..."

Meaning

...they have rights to live off other people's labour.

[Saipan]

Rather aboriginal rights are international human rights, recognized internationally and protected under the United Nations Charter.

Who are NOT aboriginal people?

[charter.rights]

...they have rights to live off other people's labour.

And we have never received the right to live off their lands and resources in most of Canada.

[William Ashley]

...they have rights to live off other people's labour.

And colonists lived off their labour what is the difference?

You think Fur Trader's didn't make excess income from the work of the natives.

You think that these days education on how to survive over here wouldn't get a nice teacher's salary.

You are utterly ignorant in supposing that there is no legacy to the context of exchange, or means of a fair trade for equalization of grants.

The OWNERSHIP of land beyond right grant by reason and god is utterly baseless and evil.

Property likewise is hoardingselfishness - it is the grace of god and the land itself that provides all for humanity you ignorant prick.

People live and breath and have what is provided. They can struggle or they can have peace in their life. It makes no difference - but humanity does owe life to one another less you are not in good spirit and position only represents of taint to evil deeds and intent.

(there is the justification of reasonable use as well as personal affect - the extent of share resource in a monetary system is generally based on determination the print - which the government "gets free money" - but why is the "government" more important than any private body for rightful valuation - and why are the private parties that receive patronage from the government any more worthy of the free money? It should be based on need. And people directed by the government who are in need to reduce any burdens on the public itself, so those that are children in care should have choice to be children or equals in standing on their own. The government however owes a duty to ameliorate the want from all its people so long as the needs of the people are justified and good. That the limit of removing the hurt from society is only limited by the willingness of society to remove the hurt. "Give me what I want or I'll take it" that is the bottom line that is how government works and so that is the mirror ethical conduct to interact with government in - but always right and honourable rationality must be utilized in determining all needs as opposed to desires which are not required and cause harm to others - since wrong acts are only those that knowing harm others without the need to do so)

Need to get this in before the possible ban...

first off yeah native treaty rights should be brought into being but really treaties mean to be renegotiated... thing is though - CANADA people arn't concerned with "the law" because their law is basically take what you can get, and really it is only Swiss defence that can leverage native rights to equal protection and veto on use of land or resources. Saipan, Canada is getting all it has from them, I hope you get that. The framework is wrong, but in modern society stealing other peoples land by trickery, murder, and enslavement is not moral or good.

Canada does not have a moral social position in which it can assert its own rights - without denying freedom, and Canada is founded on a principle as of 1982 of a free society, an equal society. If your justice makes slavery fundamental in a democratic society I am only open to being your master so as to emancipate and educate your lack of knowing what it takes to live a life that doesn't come back to haunt you. It is a hard lesson but if you support slavery you will suffer the worst of that, like support of any wrong, you will live the worst of it before being freed from unknowing.

That is my beleif. The treaty stuff is pretty much set, but no the government is way out of bounds. Perpetual binding is not legal beyond the generation of supposition - although the problem exists with the non reaffirmation of treaties which should be mandatory by government or chief.

The idea of perpetuity is problematic legally because contract is not legal without being with informed consent and people who were not alive at the time of a contract cannot have informed consent.

It is martial or political.

Land rights are problematic especially in a Canadian context because of migration and war from 1600 onward (and before to a certain extent).

There are breaches of law in the crown treaties as such many are void.

Edited September 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[jacee]

Only in your dreams, and only in reality to the extent that sovereign states like Canada acknowledge the UN Charter or indeed any UN undertaking as superior to Canadian law.

Utter rubbish. The only aboriginal rights outside the juridiction of the Canadian govt are for those aboriginals outside Canada, like in Peru or Australia. Canada has not ceded jurisdiction on any Canadian citizens, including aboriginals.

Canada is a signatory to international conventions and our courts do recognize international law. An Aboriginal person from Peru oversees Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure it meets UN standards. This is a result of court orders.

Our governments may negotiate in bad faith, but the courts are not anymore, and the judicial branch of government does have jurisdiction.

Your comments suggest you think Canada can continue to abuse Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal people without consequence and that isn't so.

Edited September 5, 2011 by jacee

[Smallc]

No, the comment means (and your own post reinforces) that aboriginal rights exist only so far as there are governments and (voluntary) bodies that enforce them.

[jacee]

...they have rights to live off other people's labour.

There is some truth to that. We are 'labouring' on their land and they are entitled to a share of the profits from their land. Edited September 5, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

No, the comment means (and your own post reinforces) that aboriginal rights exist only so far as there are governments and (voluntary) bodies that enforce them.

Isn't that true of all laws? Are you saying that laws don't matter unless governments want them to? Are you saying that governments are above the law?

What about the judicial branch of government?

[Smallc]

Isn't that true of all laws?

No, you're not really getting it. Aboriginal rights, don't exist in some......external cosmic place. They only exist because we acknowledge that they exist.

The judicial branch of government simply interprets laws and constitutions devised by the other parts of government.

[eyeball]

No, you're not really getting it. Aboriginal rights, don't exist in some......external cosmic place. They only exist because we acknowledge that they exist.

Rights exist in our imagination. We get that. As for other esoteric abstractions, consider the nation...the notion from which many insist their very existence hangs.

I'm just an Earthling myself so this all starts sounding a little surreal after awhile.

In any case it seems natural to me that aboriginal rights will evolve and rise to the top or move to the head of the line or become the basis for any that follow. I mean, what part of original in the word aboriginal is it that people don't get? That's largely why I've decided I'm simply an Earthling. It makes it easier to think about this stuff.

Edited September 5, 2011 by eyeball

[charter.rights]

No, you're not really getting it. Aboriginal rights, don't exist in some......external cosmic place. They only exist because we acknowledge that they exist.

The judicial branch of government simply interprets laws and constitutions devised by the other parts of government.

Laws and rights exist because of agreement. Our social contract - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - is that agreement to act and behave in a way that is Canadian. It too is nothing but a figment of our collective imagination, but nonetheless binding in a civil society.

However, in that context (and the context of all law) Aboriginal rights exist beyond the borders of Canada's recognition. The United nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a prime example of those rights that are internationally protected. The fact that Canada not only signed on but was in many ways the architect of the Declaration is evidence that we hold to the international contract of protection of rights and civility far beyond the borders or limited mindset of some smallc Canadians.

Edited September 5, 2011 by charter.rights

[Tilter]

There is some truth to that. We are 'labouring' on their land and they are entitled to a share of the profits from their land.

As with any conquering, the spoils go to the victor, in this case, the white man. We own Canada-- & tolerate the former "NATIVE". Speaking of NATIVE the word is defined as "a person born in a particular place or country" which makes the aboriginal issue MOOT as there are now about 30 million natives (persons born in a particular place or country) so it's time that the Aboriginals faced up to the fact that they are Canadians like the rest of us

[charter.rights]

As with any conquering, the spoils go to the victor, in this case, the white man. We own Canada-- & tolerate the former "NATIVE". Speaking of NATIVE the word is defined as "a person born in a particular place or country" which makes the aboriginal issue MOOT as there are now about 30 million natives (persons born in a particular place or country) so it's time that the Aboriginals faced up to the fact that they are Canadians like the rest of us

I get that you may not very be smart, but it might help to look in a book now and then, or learn how to use a search engine BEFORE you make inept comments.

First Nations have never been conquered. In fact if you read the treaties and the Supreme Court rulings that go along with them, you will find that we ended up with the shorter straw. Those treaties apparently are binding as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows.....forever.... Aboriginal rights on the other hand are exempt from the kinds of stipulations, laws and regulations that most of us are plagued by. Their freedoms are much more desirable than ours. Their potential much greater than our potential - not being saddled with unfair taxation, and burdened with the rules under which we create our opportunities. They still hold title to much of Canada, and hold extensive rights over the balance of it. We are the renters. We are beholding to First Nations. And as their legal rights are justified and quantified by the courts, we stand to lose much more than we have gained.

I would suggest that you like the rest of us, are a loser in those deals. But given your ignorant statements that are beyond the justification of a decent education on aboriginal issues, I would suggest that it is pretty predictable on first glance.

[charter.rights]

And BTW. First Nations people are not Canadians unless they "choose" to be. That is one more freedom they have that we were not born with.

[eyeball]

And BTW. First Nations people are not Canadians unless they "choose" to be. That is one more freedom they have that we were not born with.

Would you people please get your country off my planet?

Thanks.

[charter.rights]

Would you people please get your country off my planet?

Thanks.

"Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace. "

John Lennon

[CANADIEN]

As with any conquering, the spoils go to the victor, in this case, the white man. We own Canada-- & tolerate the former "NATIVE". Speaking of NATIVE the word is defined as "a person born in a particular place or country" which makes the aboriginal issue MOOT as there are now about 30 million natives (persons born in a particular place or country) so it's time that the Aboriginals faced up to the fact that they are Canadians like the rest of us

Aboriginals are Canadians like the rest of us... except that they are tolerated...

BTW, as a French-speaking Canadian... I am also just tolerated by you?

[WWWTT]

As with any conquering, the spoils go to the victor, in this case, the white man. We own Canada-- & tolerate the former "NATIVE". Speaking of NATIVE the word is defined as "a person born in a particular place or country" which makes the aboriginal issue MOOT as there are now about 30 million natives (persons born in a particular place or country) so it's time that the Aboriginals faced up to the fact that they are Canadians like the rest of us

Oh really?

Ok next time I'm in Ottawa I'll visit the local land registry office.There I will look up the title for "Canada"(somthing tells me I'm not going to find it).And when I do I'm betting I won't see the registered owner being "White man" or "Tilter"

So then that would mean you are making a fraudulent statement(if you were trying to sell any part there of).

WWWTT

[charter.rights]

Aboriginals are Canadians like the rest of us... except that they are tolerated...

BTW, as a French-speaking Canadian... I am also just tolerated by you?

Well, no. Not like the rest of us. In fact First Nations by their virtue are not Canadian. ~Some~ aboriginal people might count themselves as Canadian but most First Nations people choose their nation of origin to be identified with.

Nowhere in time, law or history has Canada ever legally obtained dominion over First Nations, their land or their citizenship.

[Wild Bill]

"Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace. "

John Lennon

Here's the next lines:

You owe us the fruits of your labour

Just because we say!

The contract is forever 'cuz we

Remember it that way!

"So keep giving us your money

So we all end up like Greece!"

You may say I'm a dreamer

But at least I buy my own.