Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 If the rights don't exist inside the legal framework of the country, where could they exist? Quote
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) If the rights don't exist inside the legal framework of the country, where could they exist?The legal foundation of Canada exists in many documents, the Royal Proclamation 1763, treaties, the BNA Act, etc etc.List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 "Impossibility"of upholding the Queen's treaties? Even the ones Sir John A had negotiated? Starved them into submission to sign? Governments can't keep their word? They have to. It's the law. See, this is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Translated it's I don't care if the entire country bursts into flames and every single man, woman and child dies as long as I get my way". NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. "They have to. It's the law!" No, actually, they don't. And if it's the law, the law would be changed if they tried to carry it out. For that matter, if the government seriously tried they and the supreme court would all be shot, along with a big chunk of the native population. You can insist the law is the law all you want, but if the interpretation of the law means people giving up all their homes and savings to natives there'd be a blood bath and most of the natives would be dead. Indigenous communities wanted local control of their education systems - like we have - pretty reasonable in light of how horribly the feds have handled it for the last 140 years. . Guess what? The people who pay for that education you speak of get to oversee it somewhat through voting for the governments which oversee it. What they are asking is to have total control of spending my money, and I get no say in it. Not going to happen. That's especially so given the monumental corruption and misuse of funds which is endemic throughout the native community. No level of government gets to spend money without oversight from those who paid that money. And that goes for the natives, too. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Life is passing you by while you pine for the impossible. . This really is good advice -- for natives and their fringe supporters. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 The legal foundation of Canada exists in many documents, the Royal Proclamation 1763, treaties, the BNA Act, etc etc. List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents Do you notice that it's a list of Constitutional documents? Do you understand the fallacy in your argument? Quote
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 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. I disagree. The stupidest thing they've done is give credence to 'oral history' where some guy says what he remembers his great Uncle Running Dog tell him once forty years or so back and the courts are supposed to take that as valid evidence. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 I guess if you don't understand the word "nation" it is. I understand reality, which is a concept that always seems to horrify you. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) See, this is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Translated it's I don't care if the entire country bursts into flames and every single man, woman and child dies as long as I get my way". NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. "They have to. It's the law!" No, actually, they don't. And if it's the law, the law would be changed if they tried to carry it out. For that matter, if the government seriously tried they and the supreme court would all be shot, along with a big chunk of the native population. You can insist the law is the law all you want, but if the interpretation of the law means people giving up all their homes and savings to natives there'd be a blood bath and most of the natives would be dead. What a load of drama! Guess what? The people who pay for that education you speak of get to oversee it somewhat through voting for the governments which oversee it. What they are asking is to have total control of spending my money, and I get no say in it. Not going to happen. That's especially so given the monumental corruption and misuse of funds which is endemic throughout the native community. No level of government gets to spend money without oversight from those who paid that money. And that goes for the natives, too. I want "oversight" of the billions in corporate welfare, political party support, etc. that we shell out too.. Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 I want "oversight" of the billions in corporate welfare, political party support, etc. that we shell out too. . . We have that. Quote
guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 I disagree. The stupidest thing they've done is give credence to 'oral history' where some guy says what he remembers his great Uncle Running Dog tell him once forty years or so back and the courts are supposed to take that as valid evidence.Except in many cases, and disciplines, they generally did have the history right. Quote
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Except in many cases, and disciplines, they generally did have the history right. Define 'many'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) What a load of drama! I'm telling you what would happen if the government tried to turn over vast chunks of the country to natives without regard to the people who presently own it, or tried to double our national debt paying off some greedy native chiefs. I want "oversight" of the billions in corporate welfare, political party support, etc. that we shell out too.. And yet you feel it unreasonable to have oversight of the billions paid to native bands? Edited January 20, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Define 'many'.Geographical, historical for starters. Just this week scientists finally linked the devastating Tsunami damage in Japan from over a hundred years ago (IIRC) to the West coast of Van Isl and how the earthquake caused it. Oral history of the FN's of Van Isl was shown to be spot on. Quote
Argus Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Geographical, historical for starters. Just this week scientists finally linked the devastating Tsunami damage in Japan from over a hundred years ago (IIRC) to the West coast of Van Isl and how the earthquake caused it. Oral history of the FN's of Van Isl was shown to be spot on. Oral histories which say there was a big earthquake can be proven or disproved with evidence. They're also fairly simple tales to tell and remember. Oral histories which give details of treaty negotiations more than a hundred and fifty years ago are something else again. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
drummindiver Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Geographical, historical for starters. Just this week scientists finally linked the devastating Tsunami damage in Japan from over a hundred years ago (IIRC) to the West coast of Van Isl and how the earthquake caused it. Oral history of the FN's of Van Isl was shown to be spot on. Oral history gave us Christianity and Islam amongst others. We've seen how well that turned out. Spot on? Quote
guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Oral histories which say there was a big earthquake can be proven or disproved with evidence. They're also fairly simple tales to tell and remember. Oral histories which give details of treaty negotiations more than a hundred and fifty years ago are something else again. I certainly dont want to get into a prolonged sidebar on this, but the oral was the mover in figuring out what happened. So...if it can be accepted to some degree by science then maybe they do have relevance. I aint crazy about it either but there is a level of accuracy in it. Quote
guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 Oral history gave us Christianity and Islam amongst others. We've seen how well that turned out. Spot on? No idea the point. Quote
TimG Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Except in many cases, and disciplines, they generally did have the history right.We live a society with unprecedented access to information yet the same facts presented by different media outlets sound completely different. "Oral history" is nothing but a self serving narrative that might include some facts but there is no way to separate the fact from the fiction. That said, oral history is not completely irrelevant - it is like listening to a news report on Fox - (i.e. extremely biased but provides an alternate perspective that should be taken into account when assessing other evidence). Edited January 21, 2015 by TimG Quote
jacee Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 I'm telling you what would happen if the government tried to turn over vast chunks of the country to natives without regard to the people who presently own it, or tried to double our national debt paying off some greedy native chiefs.Do you lie awake at night catastrophying about the ways the scary government might abuse you?Maybe some warm milk would help with those night terrors. And yet you feel it unreasonable to have oversight of the billions paid to native bands? We were talking about local control of education, like we have. . Quote
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 We were talking about local control of education, like we have. And where is policy set? That's what I thought. Quote
Remiel Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Unlike some, I do not think that indigenous peoples need to have only the exact rights and legal systems that the rest of us have. But basically what so much of this amounts to is that First Nations want a form of aristocracy, whether they think of it that way or not. The only difference between them are traditional aristocrats is that they are impoverished now. The system has practically makes indigenous peoples inferior to "settlers" . But the system so many of them seem to want has as its core principal that the rest of us, the vast majority in this country, are born inferior. They say we make them feel like strangers in their own lands. Well, they say we are aliens in the lands of our birth and our parents birth too.I really think we need to get rid of the monarchy. Not necessarily the Crown, but the monarchy has to go. There will never be reconcilliation of any kind so long as one side maintains that sovereignty flows from the people while the other side are just some incidental bunch stuck with upholding a sovereignty that belongs to hereditary monarch. Tradition be damned all around.And anyone who dwells too long on the fact that Canada would not be here without John A. should wonder whether Cambodians born in the aftermath of the Killing Fields should feel gratefully to the Khmer Rouge for being such bloodthirsty scumbags. After all, without that shower of the blood, they never would have been born, right? Edited January 21, 2015 by Remiel Quote
Argus Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 Do you lie awake at night catastrophying about the ways the scary government might abuse you? No. I know the government, regardless of which party is in power, will never do what you want. I'm simply telling you what would happen if they thought like you do. We were talking about local control of education, like we have. We pay for that education, and we vote for those who disperse the funds. The natives wouldn't be paying for that education money. The federal government would. Therefore, they need to have oversight. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 Stephen Harper continues to impress! I wonder what Justin would write? A drunk and a racist impresses Harper and you find that impressive? Quote
Argus Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 A drunk and a racist impresses Harper and you find that impressive? Drunk, he might have been, but he accomplished more in his life and did more for his people than Trudeau will EVER manage. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted January 21, 2015 Report Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Drunk, he might have been, but he accomplished more in his life and did more for his people than Trudeau will EVER manage. Which Trudeau ? Cuz , ya know, Sir John never made it into Rolling Stone mag, or featured on entertainment shows headlines. Edited January 21, 2015 by Guyser2 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.