Smallc Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 Not arguing the facts? Really? It's quite clear who is arguing the facts. No rights exist without the protection of said rights by the state, or some other body. Aboriginal rights exist separate from all others because Canada chooses to have things that way. Canada can change that, if it so pleases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 Rights exist regardless of state protection. It's up to people to protect their own rights when they're infringed, which is why you see First Nations clashing with the police (State). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 Rights exist regardless of state protection. How do rights exist outside of any kind of framework? You may think they exist, but someone else may not. Without protection, the fact that rights 'exist' is meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 How do rights exist outside of any kind of framework? You may think they exist, but someone else may not. Without protection, the fact that rights 'exist' is meaningless. At the end of the day, the only protection you have is at the end of your fist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 At the end of the day, the only protection you have is at the end of your fist. So then the rights don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 How do rights exist outside of any kind of framework? You may think they exist, but someone else may not. Without protection, the fact that rights 'exist' is meaningless. Wrong. Rights are "inherent" and asserted by the individual. Nelson Mandela asserted his right to be part of a free society, to speak freely and openly, and to defy those who would suppress him. He was put under house arrest for over 20 years. In the end it wasn't the state who came to his aid. It was the people, and the international community that put pressure on South Africa to reform and open the door of apartheid into a democratic society. Although the state may attempt to thwart the rights of individuals and groups, eventually they will not stand. In Canada we have a Constitution which includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that says that aboriginal rights are not subject any restrictions placed on it by the Charter. Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter25. 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 1763; and ' any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. Note that the rights are ones that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation 1763 or by lands claims agreements. It does not say "recognized by Canada". This puts the rights (as the subtitle suggests) outside of the Charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 Wrong. Rights are "inherent" and asserted by the individual. Nelson Mandela asserted his right to be part of a free society, to speak freely and openly, and to defy those who would suppress him. He was put under house arrest for over 20 years. In the end it wasn't the state who came to his aid.... You forgot the part where he bombed trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 So then the rights don't exist. Ask the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 You forgot the part where he bombed trains. Sadly, there's always some collateral damage in revolutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 This puts the rights (as the subtitle suggests) outside of the Charter.The charter is but one part of the constitution. The clause that the charter was not intended to impinged on these rights was placed their because legally they could impinge on those rights. Why bother with the wording if this is not the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 The charter is but one part of the constitution. The clause that the charter was not intended to impinged on these rights was placed their because legally they could impinge on those rights. Why bother with the wording if this is not the case? Boy are you ever stuck in denial. The clause was put there so that the dominant white males could not undermine rights for their own pleasure. It was put there because in the past despite treaties and agreements, and despite the protections provided under the Royal Proclamation 1763 we largely ignored Aboriginal rights. Even the courts denied those rights. The clause makes it absolutely clear that the promises of the Crown to Aboriginal people and the agreements with them stand above all else. That the rights recognized from before Confederation are the Supreme law today and that the Charter cannot abrogate or derogate from those rights in trying to find a balance with other parts of the Charter. In other words, "Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter", just as the subtitle suggests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) Rights exist regardless of state protection. It's up to people to protect their own rights when they're infringed... In a society, rights aren't left to the individual to dream up for himself as suits himself. Limitations must be placed on absolute individual freedom, else anarchy ensues. This is why Section 1 of the Charter exists. Basic rights and restrictions must be commonly agreed upon and set down in laws the courts may then base their rulings upon in cases of perceived infringements on someone's or some people's rights. [+] Edited September 14, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 Sadly, there's always some collateral damage in revolutions. Collateral damage? His wife also took part in a quaint custom known as "necklacing" where a tire was soaked in gasoline, thrown over someone's head and set alight. Mandela may have also participated but there is no proof or record of him being involved. Perhaps this is where we differ. This is NOT the same as Israel launching an air strike at a clear target like a rocket launcher installation and killing a few civilians as collateral damage! Bombing trains and necklacing is a deliberate act where innocents ARE the target or someone is killed in a horrible manner out of all proportion to any possible crime! To me, such actions brand those involved as rabid animals. They are war crimes! To you, they are just run of the mill "revolutionaries". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 Collateral damage? His wife also took part in a quaint custom known as "necklacing" where a tire was soaked in gasoline, thrown over someone's head and set alight. Mandela may have also participated but there is no proof or record of him being involved. Perhaps this is where we differ. This is NOT the same as Israel launching an air strike at a clear target like a rocket launcher installation and killing a few civilians as collateral damage! Bombing trains and necklacing is a deliberate act where innocents ARE the target or someone is killed in a horrible manner out of all proportion to any possible crime! To me, such actions brand those involved as rabid animals. They are war crimes! To you, they are just run of the mill "revolutionaries". It merely depends on whose side you are on and whether or not freedom has a price. Obviously, you would be unwilling to pay the price for your own freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 Collateral damage? His wife also took part in a quaint custom known as "necklacing" where a tire was soaked in gasoline, thrown over someone's head and set alight. Mandela may have also participated but there is no proof or record of him being involved. Perhaps this is where we differ. This is NOT the same as Israel launching an air strike at a clear target like a rocket launcher installation and killing a few civilians as collateral damage! Bombing trains and necklacing is a deliberate act where innocents ARE the target or someone is killed in a horrible manner out of all proportion to any possible crime! To me, such actions brand those involved as rabid animals. They are war crimes! To you, they are just run of the mill "revolutionaries". I apologize for making that comment in this thread. It was said in the context of another thread re revolutions happening when income and power gaps are extreme. My service went down and I couldn't erase it. Though it may be relevant to the income and power gaps experienced by Aboriginal people in Canada, I am in no way suggesting that they would or should engage in violent revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 I apologize for making that comment in this thread. It was said in the context of another thread re revolutions happening when income and power gaps are extreme. My service went down and I couldn't erase it. Though it may be relevant to the income and power gaps experienced by Aboriginal people in Canada, I am in no way suggesting that they would or should engage in violent revolution. It's not always easy to admit to errors, so kudos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Though it may be relevant to the income and power gaps experienced by Aboriginal people in Canada, I am in no way suggesting that they would or should engage in violent revolution. Revolutions are necessarily violent. There is no way of changing the entire course of history peacefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Revolutions are necessarily violent. There is no way of changing the entire course of history peacefully. Why "necessarily?" Nonviolent Revolution (wiki) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Much more fundamentally, aboriginals are smart people, know this land. Yet, too many aboriginals are in jail, illiterate. In this, the Canadian state has failed. If aboriginals are smart people, why are they overrepresented in all things bad - disease, divorce, welfare, academic underachievement, addiction, obesity, and low IQ scores? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 If aboriginals are smart people, why are they overrepresented in all things bad - disease, divorce, welfare, academic underachievement, addiction, obesity, and low IQ scores? Can you cite some statistics please? I for one would like to see this over-representedness first hand. I'll give you some time to come up with the data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Can you cite some statistics please? I for one would like to see this over-representedness first hand. I'll give you some time to come up with the data. Are you serious? The Aboriginals themselves are the ones blaming all of their problems on racism from the "White Man". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 Are you serious? The Aboriginals themselves are the ones blaming all of their problems on racism from the "White Man". Really? Can you cite some sort of study or publication that backs your point? You seem very self-assured so it is likely because you have definitive evidence on hand right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 27, 2011 Report Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) Really? Can you cite some sort of study or publication that backs your point? You seem very self-assured so it is likely because you have definitive evidence on hand right? Ignore the man behind the curtain. He is all talk and no substance like a lot of non-thinking right wing nuts. Edited September 27, 2011 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.