Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

[jacee]

1. Your idea of 'a lot' has zero credibility. You used to think it was $10 billion and recently it was $200 billion. Please excuse me if I don't take your comment of us spending ' a lot' seriously. Like smallc said, prove that it's a lot.

Oh I think it's a lot.

Prove me wrong. Scared to look?

2. Show me where in the treaties it says that we would share the resources. Show me....actual text not your made up version found in the comment section. The only reason there is any resource sharing is due to the courts which again is brought on by legal costs.

Treaty interpretation is in the courts, and governments could be using those precedents to resolve issues more efficiently.

Feel free to browse these treaty interpretations.

Skip BC cases - no treaties.

Gee ... who benefits from those resources?

http://guides.library.utoronto.ca/content_mobile.php?pid=222750&sid=1902741#box_1902741

[Accountability Now]

Oh I think it's a lot.

Prove me wrong. Scared to look]

I have proven you wrong twice!!!!!!!! I am the only one who actually has looked. I know you lack critical thinking skills but I think you are just playing the part because you know you have nothing. The fact that 'you think' it's a lot means nothing.

Treaty interpretation is in the courts, and governments could be using those precedents to resolve issues more efficiently.

Feel free to browse these treaty interpretations.

Skip BC cases - no treaties.

Gee ... who benefits from those resources?http://guides.library.utoronto.ca/content_mobile.php?pid=222750&sid=1902741#box_1902741

I said treaty text not treaty interpretation. Treaty interpretation is required to be done by courts. Has your comprehension failed you or are you avoiding the question.

Show me where it says it in the text

[Smallc]

Oh I think it's a lot.

Prove me wrong. Scared to look?

You really have no idea how debates work, do you?

[jacee]

I have proven you wrong twice!!!!!!!! I am the only one who actually has looked. I know you lack critical thinking skills but I think you are just playing the part because you know you have nothing. The fact that 'you think' it's a lot means nothing.

I said treaty text not treaty interpretation. Treaty interpretation is required to be done by courts. Has your comprehension failed you or are you avoiding the question.

Show me where it says it in the text

Your literal interpretation or mine are irrelevant.

It's the court's interpretation that matters as other records and legal precedents are used as well.

Read the treaty, read the ruling and if you don't agree... well I guess you can take it up with the judge.

.

[Accountability Now]

Your literal interpretation or mine are irrelevant.

It's the court's interpretation that matters as other records and legal precedents are used as well.

Read the treaty, read the ruling and if you don't agree... well I guess you can take it up with the judge.

.

Your point above was that we were in court because we didn't honor the treaties when in fact we are in court to interpret the treaties. If we took the treaties as they were meant in their literal tense then it would have been game over a long time ago! However the courts do interpret. And you know what else are involved in courts? Lawyers and other legal administrators that cost money.

As such the only reason we have any legal costs is not because the treaties weren't honoured, it's because the courts take the time to interpret them.

I know that you just want Canada to just give up everything anytime someone makes a claim however you are proof positive as per our discussion that you can't accept everyone' so called claims just because they believe it.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

Your point above was that we were in court because we didn't honor the treaties when in fact we are in court to interpret the treaties. If we took the treaties as they were meant in their literal tense

They were "meant" in whatever way BOTH parties understood them at the time: As with all contracts, there must be a 'meeting of the minds', an agreement, taking language differences into consideration as well.

Other records corroborate, other laws apply, and the "honour of the Crown" must be upheld.

And honourable Crown representatives would not have pretended to agree to one thing verbally and written something else... in a foreign language... to 'trick' them into signing would they? :/

Literal interpretations are not the whole story.

.

[Accountability Now]

They were "meant" in whatever way BOTH parties understood them at the time: As with all contracts, there must be a 'meeting of the minds', an agreement, taking language differences into consideration as well.

I think you romanticize our history a bit much. The Natives did not sign these treaties as equally leveraged partners. They saw the white man coming from the east and the Americans pressing from the south. They knew it was a matter of time before they were eliminated if they did not sign a treaty. The treaty was one sided because that is the exact position these two sides were in.

Other records corroborate, other laws apply, and the "honour of the Crown" must be upheld.

And honourable Crown representatives would not have pretended to agree to one thing verbally and written something else... in a foreign language... to 'trick' them into signing would they? :/

Just another sign showing the natives had zero leverage at the time. They were taking whatever they could get. History has shown that the first treaties gave the Natives the least because they had nothing. Over time they started to realize they could negotiate for a little more which is reflected in the later treaties but never were they negotiating from a seat of power. The only power they have now is the they strum at the bleeding hearts of our courts.

Literal interpretations are not the whole story.

That's funny....they are with every other legal contract in our country and the rest of the civilized world. But I guess in this case its ok to override the written word with a story passed down among generations that I'm sure has totally stayed in tact and was never manipulated for personal gain. I'm sure. Lol.

[Accountability Now]

It does look like the Government is tackling the number of claims out there....

[eyeball]

I think you romanticize our history a bit much.

But I guess in this case its ok to override the written word with a story passed down among generations that I'm sure has totally stayed in tact and was never manipulated for personal gain. I'm sure. Lol.

So says the guy who only learned about the Bulls the other day.

[Accountability Now]

So says the guy who only learned about the Bulls the other day.

Do you know what the word romanticized means?

[eyeball]

Do you? The Bulls should be your first clue.

[Accountability Now]

Do you? The Bulls should be your first clue.

Not knowing something about history is not the same about romantacizing.....here I'll give you a little help since you clearly need it.

ro·man·ti·cize

rōˈman(t)əˌsīz/

verb

past tense: romanticized; past participle: romanticized

1. deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is.

   "the tendency to romanticize nonindustrial societies"

[eyeball]

Yes, unrealistic describes perfectly the manner by which you and our society have coated our conquest's justifications. Still using the same basic sugary flavored rose coloured crap that was inspired in places like Rome.

[jacee]

I think you romanticize our history a bit much. The Natives did not sign these treaties as equally leveraged partners. They saw the white man coming from the east and the Americans pressing from the south. They knew it was a matter of time before they were eliminated if they did not sign a treaty. The treaty was one sided because that is the exact position these two sides were in.

Just another sign showing the natives had zero leverage at the time. They were taking whatever they could get. History has shown that the first treaties gave the Natives the least because they had nothing. Over time they started to realize they could negotiate for a little more which is reflected in the later treaties but never were they negotiating from a seat of power. The only power they have now is the they strum at the bleeding hearts of our courts.

That's funny....they are with every other legal contract in our country and the rest of the civilized world. But I guess in this case its ok to override the written word with a story passed down among generations that I'm sure has totally stayed in tact and was never manipulated for personal gain. I'm sure. Lol.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Think I'll stick with what the courts say.

.

[Accountability Now]

Yes, unrealistic describes perfectly the manner by which you and our society have coated our conquest's justifications. Still using the same basic sugary flavored rose coloured crap that was inspired in places like Rome.

Um...no. I have always been well aware of the brutal nature that our society has taken to get to where we are. The funny thing is that you think its just 'our society' that has done it. That is a hoot. Look at the countless battles that the natives had before we got here and even while we were here. Do you honestly believe their conquest was for mother earth? LOL. Come on.

The age of war back then was ruthless and I have no clue who thinks it was anything other than that. There was no Genva Convention or global community to stop atrocies or to have higher thinking. Hell....it was primative right until recent times. The fact that you put our 'current' knowlege base and what we percive to be right back onto what those people were doing then shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

[Accountability Now]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Think I'll stick with what the courts say.

.

Of course you will. In the mean time make sure you stop reading the comments section. It will only get you in trouble.

[eyeball]

The fact that you put our 'current' knowlege base and what we percive to be right back onto what those people were doing then shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm applying the moral base we have in the present to guide our path into the future. You're the one that keeps looking to the past, apparently for some justification to keep the brakes pushed to the mat.

[Accountability Now]

That's not what I'm doing. I'm applying the moral base we have in the present to guide our path into the future.

That's exactly what you're doing. The conversation that you so timely chriped in at was based on a historical event. Its hard to NOT talk about things in the past when that is what the conversation is about. Of course you had no problem chirping in about your historical interpretation but now by some stroke of genius, you are now claiming that you only look to the future. What a hoot.

You're the one that keeps looking to the past, apparently for some justification to keep the brakes pushed to the mat.

That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. Again, I have no problem looking to the past to make the realization as to how we got here however my entire discontent with the whole aboriginal approach is that they continue to look to the past and romantacize about the actual history. Of course, this method has garnered support with the bleeding heart courts and has won them various claims and continues to win them claims simply because people like you feel that we should have been more 'moral' back in the day.

[Rocky Road]

hmmm

[eyeball]

Again, I have no problem looking to the past to make the realization as to how we got here

You also don't have any problem apologizing for the justifications that were used to get and keep us where we are.

Recall in other threads how being an apologist for something is the same as supporting it.

[Accountability Now]

You also don't have any problem apologizing for the justifications that were used to get and keep us where we are.

Recall in other threads how being an apologist for something is the same as supporting it.

Interesting. I already answered your comment on me being an apologist by stating that I wasn't and that all I was doing was applying logic and not apologizing at all. However, you chose not to respond to that and have now concluded on your own that I am an apologist. Good work.

I am fully aware of how the Catholic church operated, not just in general but also specifically in Canada with the natives. However, if you are going to single out the one bull made in the 1400s then you should give equal footing (if not more) to the next bull that came along in the 15th century. Its logic....not apologizing.

Let me ask you a question. Germany has laws today that say that Jewish people are allowed to live unharmed in that country. Does that law not take precedent over anything that happend in the 30s and 40s? Sure...you may still have neo-nazi types commiting crimes against Jews as a result of the first law but the official position of the German government has now changed. Would I be apolgistic for Hitler....no but would I also condemn the current government even though they changed their position. No.

If you're going to take one of the bulls then you have to take them all. You can't pick and choose the ones you like. And noting this does not make me an apologist for the previous bulls.

[eyeball]

Interesting. I already answered your comment on me being an apologist by stating that I wasn't and that all I was doing was applying logic and not apologizing at all. However, you chose not to respond to that and have now concluded on your own that I am an apologist. Good work.

According to your logic the definition for apology is the same as it is for repudiate.

a·pol·o·gize

əˈpäləˌjīz/

verb

1. express regret for something that one has done wrong.

   "I must apologize for disturbing you like this"

   synonyms: say (one is) sorry, express regret, be apologetic,make an apology, ask forgiveness, ask for pardon;

   informaleat one's words, eat humble pie

re·pu·di·ate

rəˈpyo͞odēˌāt/

verb

1. refuse to accept or be associated with.

   "she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders"

   synonyms: reject, renounce, abandon, give up, turn one's back on, disown, cast off, lay aside; More

   • deny the truth or validity of.

     "the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses"

     synonyms: deny, contradict, controvert, rebut, dispute,dismiss, brush aside;

     formalgainsay

     "Hansen repudiated the allegations"
   • LAW

     refuse to fulfill or discharge (an agreement, obligation, or debt).

     "breach of a condition gives the other party the right to repudiate a contract"

     synonyms: cancel, revoke, rescind, reverse, overrule,overturn, invalidate, nullify; More

Do you see the difference?

Edited February 17, 2015 by eyeball

[Accountability Now]

According to your logic the definition for apology is the same as it is for repudiate.

Do you see the difference?

You gave one definition for apology and three for reputidate. Which one are you saying is the same?

[eyeball]

I did what?

Fine lets do this the stupid way. How about you go google up the fricking definitions and show me where apology and repudiate mean the same thing?

[Accountability Now]

I did what?

Fine lets do this the stupid way. How about you go google up the fricking definitions and show me where apology and repudiate mean the same thing?

Look at your definition....lets count them.

1. refuse to accept or be associated with.

"she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders"

synonyms: reject, renounce, abandon, give up, turn one's back on, disown, cast off, lay aside; More

2. deny the truth or validity of.

"the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses"

synonyms: deny, contradict, controvert, rebut, dispute,dismiss, brush aside;

formalgainsay

"Hansen repudiated the allegations"

3. LAW

refuse to fulfill or discharge (an agreement, obligation, or debt).

"breach of a condition gives the other party the right to repudiate a contract"

synonyms: cancel, revoke, rescind, reverse, overrule,overturn, invalidate, nullify; More

Do you see those numbers.....1, 2 and 3. That means there are three ways to use it. And no...I'm not going to play your 'stupid' way. I prefer that people who are trying to make a point actually make one....if they can.