Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 No, extinguishment of Aboriginal rights is not legally possible. . Of course it is. There is a set way to change the Constitution of Canada. Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Of course it is. There is a set way to change the Constitution of Canada.I had to edit my post ... extinguishment is not possible without consent.But not likely. Get over it. Move on. Life is passing you by while you pine for the impossible. . Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 20, 2015 Author Report Posted January 20, 2015 Get over it. Move on. Life is passing you by while you pine for the impossible. . The "community" you speak of does not exist. The recent First Nations position of 600 "Nations" dealing individually with "the Crown" on a "Nation to Nation" basis was ludicrous. You are probably oblivious to the fact that your debating opponents - including me - are not really arguing with you. We're using your uncompromising, emotional positions to put forward rational thought based on reality - and clearly expose the reasons why recent governments have been unable to get the Chiefs and their accomplices to help their people. Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The "community" you speak of does not exist.Not sure what you mean. Certainly Indigenous communities do exist, and do ratify any new treaties, as per the Royal Proclamation 1763. The recent First Nations position of 600 "Nations" dealing individually with "the Crown" on a "Nation to Nation" basis was ludicrous.?? The parties to the original treaties negotiated that way, and current negotiations are still based on those treaties. Again, not really sure what you're suggesting. You are probably oblivious to the fact that your debating opponents - including me - are not really arguing with you. We're using your uncompromising, emotional positions to put forward rational thought based on reality - and clearly expose the reasons why recent governments have been unable to get the Chiefs and their accomplices to help their people.That's a judgement, an opinion, a disrespectful collective insult. Our governments don't negotiate in good faith. That's a fact. Aboriginal and treaty rights are not an emotion but a legal fact, not going away, and getting stronger with each court case. The arguments by you, Argus, smallc and TimG are neither rational nor reality based. They are based in unrealistic dreams of changing the Constitution. That's not going to happen and it doesn't matter anyway: the Constitution just recognized Aboriginal and treaty rights already "existing". There is now a substantial body of Supreme Court case law documenting what those "existing" rights were and still are. That is reality. So what do you think of Sir John A's treaties? . Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee Quote
TimG Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Extinguishment of Aboriginal rights is not legally possible without consentWhy don't you read what I wrote? Negotiations require a willingness for both parties to address legitimate issues. By refusing to discuss extinguishment aboriginals sabotage the land claim process and made a resolution impossible. IOW - it is simply wrong to blame the government for a failure to address land claims - a large portion of the blame rests with aboriginal groups that have unreasonable expectations. Quote
TimG Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) They are based in unrealistic dreams of changing the Constitution.To point of the argument is to make it clear that native rights are subject to the approval of Canadian voting pubic. If the Canadian voting public is sufficiently motivated those rights can be curtailed and/or removed. This means that natives cannot expect to get whatever they want. The can only expect to get what the Canadian public is willing to accept. At this point in time, 30 years of pro-native propaganda in schools has resulted in a Canadian public that is sympathetic to native concerns but that is only because they do not see how resolving them will impact their lives. This will change quickly if people start to believe they are being harmed by politicians or judges that cave into native demands. Edited January 20, 2015 by TimG Quote
jbg Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 MacDonald's polices regarding natives and Chinese indicate the PM does not represent all Canadians and never did, something that many Canadians maintain is still the case today. Perhaps if MacDonald hadn't been stoned out of his mind all the time he could have risen above his baser instincts to feed his base, set a better standard and really created a democracy we could crow about, but he didn't and we don't. Canada was a charade from day one. At least he got a great nation built. Group hugs and "Kumbaya" doesn't do that. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 I had to edit my post ... extinguishment is not possible without consent. But not likely. That is also untrue. As I already said, the formula for changing the constitution is well defined. Quote
TimG Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) That is also untrue. As I already said, the formula for changing the constitution is well defined.Changes that impact aboriginal rights require that aboriginals be consulted (consult does not imply consent). It is likely that simply following the amending formula would result in a court challenge and possibly a ruling that such a change requires more than the amending formula. If this change was preceded by a referendum (not part of the amending formula) then we would have a constitutional crisis since a cabal of unelected judges is overriding the clearly expressed will of the majority of the population. It is not clear how it would resolve itself. If nothing else an amendment that fires judges and replaces them with new ones would be one way to deal with it. For this reason, I would expect the judges to approve the results of the referendum since it would never get that far unless there were very serious issues that need resolving (meaning such a referendum would not succeed unless there was a compelling reason which does not exist today). Edited January 20, 2015 by TimG Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Changes that impact aboriginal rights require that aboriginals be consulted (consult does not imply consent). I'm not sure that's true when we're talking about constitutional change that uses the unanimous consent formula. There is nothing beyond the scope of the 11 Crown entities coming to agreement. Quote
poochy Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 MacDonald's polices regarding natives and Chinese indicate the PM does not represent all Canadians and never did, something that many Canadians maintain is still the case today. Perhaps if MacDonald hadn't been stoned out of his mind all the time he could have risen above his baser instincts to feed his base, set a better standard and really created a democracy we could crow about, but he didn't and we don't. Canada was a charade from day one. What?. Quote
TimG Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure that's true when we're talking about constitutional change that uses the unanimous consent formula. There is nothing beyond the scope of the 11 Crown entities coming to agreement.Perhaps the most stupid thing the SCC has done is decide things based on whether the SCC thinks the consultation is "sufficient" when there is a duty to consult. All this has done is ensure that *every* disagreement with natives ends up in court because they will always argue that "not agreeing with something means they were not consulted" despite the fact that the word consult was deliberately used to indicate that agreement is not required. This also means the court has enormous flexibility and can rule any way it wants for any given issue based on a subjective "quality" of consultation. What this also means is you cannot predict how the court will result whenever consultation is a requirement. Edited January 20, 2015 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Who is this 'we', white girl? I'm not going to refer to a tribe with a few hundred members as a nation. That's just silly. I guess if you don't understand the word "nation" it is. Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 That is also untrue. As I already said, the formula for changing the constitution is well defined.Don't hold your breath for that!.But as I said, the Constitution only recognizes "existing" rights: those rights existed before and would continue to exist regardless. . Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 But as I said, the Constitution only recognizes "existing" rights: those rights existed before and would continue to exist regardless. . That's absolutely impossible. Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) That's absolutely impossible.Have you even read Sec 35? It's pretty simple and clear:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-five_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1982 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Do you realize the irony in quoting a part the Constituion to say that something could exist without the Constitution? Quote
drummindiver Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 It isn't used in Canada. . Pretty sure I've heard it a time or two. In Canada. Quote
drummindiver Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Jacee wrote "But as I said, the Constitution only recognizes "existing" rights: those rights existed before and would continue to exist regardless." Again, I/everybody in the world doesn't understand your logic. I don't mean to sound flippant when I say that, but you throw out many accusations of others not understanding our country, constitution, reality, that this just strikes me as hilarious. Are you stating that before the constitution, Aboriginals had a CONSTITUTIONAL right to lands? Existing rights seems legit. CONSTITUTIONAL rights would exist if there were no CONSTITUTION or if the CONSTITUTION were legally changed? Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Do you realize the irony in quoting a part the Constituion to say that something could exist without the Constitution? Do you realize the irony of you demanding that something be changed when you don't know what it is? There are treaties, proclamations, laws, etc that evolved from conquest to confederation, all still in effect. . Quote
drummindiver Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Do you realize the irony of you demanding that something be changed when you don't know what it is? There are treaties, proclamations, laws, etc that evolved from conquest to confederation, all still in effect. . http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-proclamation-of-1763/ Your post still makes no sense. Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Do you realize the irony of you demanding that something be changed when you don't know what it is? There are treaties, proclamations, laws, etc that evolved from conquest to confederation, all still in effect. . You're not understanding. Nothing exists outside of the Constitution. Without it there are no rights, aboriginal or otherwise. Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Good grief! How did we ever manage before 1982! That's a pretty silly statement smallc. . Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Good grief! How did we ever manage before 1982! . There was Constitution before 1982, though there were no constitutionally guaranteed rights. Edited January 20, 2015 by Smallc Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) There was Constitution before 1982, though there were no constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Constitution recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights that already existed.Your statement: "Without it there are no rights, aboriginal or otherwise." ... is simply not true. Your fervent desire to 'change the Constitution' wouldn't change Aboriginal rights "existing" prior to 1982. . Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee 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.