Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 The change in wording clearly gives aboriginal interests much more clout when it comes to bargaining. Clout is not absolute certainty which is the way you are suggesting Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Clout is not absolute certainty which is the way you are suggesting Not much of anything is absolute ( I guess unless you are talking death or taxes) but the language is the law and cannot be ignored. Quote
jacee Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Clout is not absolute certainty which is the way you are suggesting"if" is not an absolute either.Accommodation is based on the strength of the claim, adjudicated by the courts if necessary. Edited April 13, 2015 by jacee Quote
Bryan Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 No they're not. They are, exponentially so. Quote
jacee Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Posted April 13, 2015 They are, exponentially so. Really? You're going to have to post a link to support that because it must be a very recent occurrence. . Quote
Bryan Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Really? You're going to have to post a link to support that because it must be a very recent occurrence. . Historically, continuously, and currently, governments in this country have given billions upon billions of dollars more than was ever agreed to. Quote
jacee Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Historically, continuously, and currently, governments in this country have given billions upon billions of dollars more than was ever agreed to.Horse apples. You'll really have to try to provide evidence to support that malarkey. But that wasn't the issue. We were talking about consultation and accommodation, a recent requirement. . Edited April 13, 2015 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 "if" is not an absolute either. Accommodation is based on the strength of the claim, adjudicated by the courts if necessary. Or in many cases, no claim at all Quote
jacee Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Posted April 13, 2015 Or in many cases, no claim at all Your biased 'claim' isn't true and smacks of painting with the broad brush of racial prejudice - maligning all based on the actions of a few, one ... or none (ie, you made it up). But go ahead and try to prove "many cases" if you want. Good luck with that. . Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Your biased 'claim' isn't true and smacks of painting with the broad brush of racial prejudice - maligning all based on the actions of a few, one ... or none (ie, you made it up). But go ahead and try to prove "many cases" if you want. Good luck with that. . I always love to see your lack of reading comprehension and general misunterstanding of the topic. We were discussing how the statement reads consult and accomodate IF APPRORIATE. So one one side of that IF involves opportunites to make claims and the other side does not. As such, my statement that many cases do not have a claim is purely a reflection of the IF involved here. In many decisions the government has only had the duty to consult and not accomodate. Now...if you think that is racial then I can honestly say you are beyond hope when it comes to these dialogues. Of course, don't let that stop you from throwing down the race card the second you feel lost. Quote
eyeball Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 It's political not racial. Are you saying the inclusion of the words "if appropriate" on a Harper government website constitutes some sort of notwithstanding clause or loophole through which his government can legally ram anything it wishes? Good luck with that. What if the chiefs decide it's their duty to protest and roadblock and keep things locked in the consulting phase? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 It's political not racial. I agree. Are you saying the inclusion of the words "if appropriate" on a Harper government website constitutes some sort of notwithstanding clause or loophole through which his government can legally ram anything it wishes? Good luck with that. No I'm not saying that. However the opposite is not true either where Natives cannot expect accomodation to follow every event of consultation. Accomodation needs to follow when appropriate. What if the chiefs decide it's their duty to protest and roadblock and keep things locked in the consulting phase? That's not a what if...they do that already (ie DeBeers). Of course when you look at the treaties that most of these First Nations have signed its states that they are not to block roads or obstruct such progress so I guess if they want to break the treaties then we'd all be better off....including the First Nations. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 I always love to see your lack of reading comprehension and general misunterstanding of the topic. We were discussing how the statement reads consult and accomodate IF APPRORIATE. So one one side of that IF involves opportunites to make claims and the other side does not. As such, my statement that many cases do not have a claim is purely a reflection of the IF involved here. In many decisions the government has only had the duty to consult and not accomodate. Now...if you think that is racial then I can honestly say you are beyond hope when it comes to these dialogues. Of course, don't let that stop you from throwing down the race card the second you feel lost. It actually says WHERE applicable and there are guidelines set out i the act that describes that. Maybe its you who has the reading problem. Quote
LemonPureLeaf Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 What if the chiefs decide it's their duty to protest and roadblock? . Then the police arrest the illegal protesters. I'm sure some people would merely run through a roadblock hitting people if necessary. People foolish enough to stand on the highways and biways almost deserve to be hit. It makes me laugh when I see the Indians protesting because they're wasting their lives away while I went to school got a good job and am now making a lot of money. All the while they want to squabble for table scraps I'm travelling the world and getting paid to do it. What a waste.The Indians need to move on. Bring back the residential school program to help program these young Indians as their parents are failing them and only succeeding in making sure the children are as racist as they are. The left falls over themselves to defend the most racist group in Canada while espousing equality. Hypocrisy. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 . Then the police arrest the illegal protesters. I'm sure some people would merely run through a roadblock hitting people if necessary. People foolish enough to stand on the highways and biways almost deserve to be hit. It makes me laugh when I see the Indians protesting because they're wasting their lives away while I went to school got a good job and am now making a lot of money. All the while they want to squabble for table scraps I'm travelling the world and getting paid to do it. What a waste. The Indians need to move on. Bring back the residential school program to help program these young Indians as their parents are failing them and only succeeding in making sure the children are as racist as they are. The left falls over themselves to defend the most racist group in Canada while espousing equality. Hypocrisy. When you start espousing the residential school horrors, I think we get the idea of what we are dealing with. It kinda feels creepy just typing this response. Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 It actually says WHERE applicable and there are guidelines set out i the act that describes that. Maybe its you who has the reading problem. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...this is hilarious. I already quoted you the exact defition from the AANDC website that clearly stated "IF APPROPRIATE"....you know....since you missed that entire part the first time you decided to speak up. Here it is again: http://www.aadnc-aan...9/1100100014653 The Crown has a legal duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate Aboriginal groups when it contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established section 35 or Treaty rights of Aboriginal groups, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida and Taku River decisions. The legal duty to consult has since been reaffirmed and continues to be expanded upon by the Supreme Court of Canada through decisions such as Little Salmon/Carmacks and Rio Tinto. I even enlarged the font and changed the color so that you won't miss it this time! Nice try on the petty argument though. It must be tough to have nothing and to try and scramble for something. What's next? Attacking spelling mistakes? The funniest part is that you already acknowledged the 'if appropriate' in your first response. Too funny. Quote
eyeball Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Again, by the same token, natives may feel a moral duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate Ottawa...OTOH they could just as easily tell Ottawa to go piss up a rope....something that's probably a lot easier for them to do to Ottawa than it is for Ottawa to do to natives. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...this is hilarious. I already quoted you the exact defition from the AANDC website that clearly stated "IF APPROPRIATE"....you know....since you missed that entire part the first time you decided to speak up. Here it is again: http://www.aadnc-aan...9/1100100014653 I even enlarged the font and changed the color so that you won't miss it this time! Nice try on the petty argument though. It must be tough to have nothing and to try and scramble for something. What's next? Attacking spelling mistakes? The funniest part is that you already acknowledged the 'if appropriate' in your first response. Too funny. You may have posted it, but you obviously havent read it. I wish I had a dollar for every tie it repeats WHERE applicable. It is a lengthy document so it is perhaps a little daunting. Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 You may have posted it, but you obviously havent read it. I wish I had a dollar for every tie it repeats WHERE applicable. It is a lengthy document so it is perhaps a little daunting. You haven't clicked the link yet...have you? The page linked to this is six paragraphs long and I quoted the first paragraph showing IF APPROPRIATE. The word WHERE doesn't even appear on this page. Try clicking the link and save yourself the embarrassment. But again, your only arguement in this whole thing is trying to differentiate between "IF" and "WHERE" when semantically they are saying the same thing. But hey....if you have that much free time to waste then go for it. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 You haven't clicked the link yet...have you? The page linked to this is six paragraphs long and I quoted the first paragraph showing IF APPROPRIATE. The word WHERE doesn't even appear on this page. Try clicking the link and save yourself the embarrassment. But again, your only arguement in this whole thing is trying to differentiate between "IF" and "WHERE" when semantically they are saying the same thing. But hey....if you have that much free time to waste then go for it. Dot have any more time to waste on it, Ive already read it. Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Dot have any more time to waste on it, Ive already read it. So just to recap....since you read it....that six paragraph page is "lenghthy" and "perhaps a little daunting"? Quote
jacee Posted April 14, 2015 Author Report Posted April 14, 2015 I always love to see your lack of reading comprehension and general misunterstanding of the topic. We were discussing how the statement reads consult and accomodate IF APPRORIATE. So one one side of that IF involves opportunites to make claims and the other side does not. As such, my statement that many cases do not have a claim is purely a reflection of the IF involved here. In many decisions the government has only had the duty to consult and not accomodate. .I don't think "many" is true, but go ahead and cite them.. Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 I don't think "many" is true, but go ahead and cite them. . Is this your tail between your legs answer after playing the race card inappropriately yet once again? Quote
jacee Posted April 16, 2015 Author Report Posted April 16, 2015 Is this your tail between your legs answer after playing the race card inappropriately yet once again? Where is your evidence to support your claim ... or is this you distracting because it's not a valid claim and you can't support it? . Quote
Accountability Now Posted April 16, 2015 Report Posted April 16, 2015 Where is your evidence to support your claim ... or is this you distracting because it's not a valid claim and you can't support it? . I'm waiting for you to retract your claim about my comment being racist otherwise what's the point with have a conversation with someone so irrational? Quote
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.