Aboriginal Rights, Canadian Rights, Human Rights- How to do it right?

[guyser]

Can we agree on being guided by the laws of Canada at least?

Since you and posit cant agree on what equal rights are and want to argue what in law is the truth, and you in fact dodge so much, how can we agree ?

Both you and posit simply feel that FN's can point over there and say "mine" , when the SCOC says how us when you lived there and why to establish proof.

Of course what needs to be done is just show up and bring the $$$$$ , seems that always gets them drunk.

[guyser]

Can we agree on being guided by the laws of Canada at least?

Do FN's have to pay income tax on money made on the reserve? What about wearing a helmet when on FN land , even though it could be a provincial highway?What about a licence? Cigarette sales?

So...do they?

[jennie]

Thank you for your contribution, guyser ... I think. (idiot)

You will be pleased to know, then, that I am not proposing that we discuss First Nations and Canadian law, for that is a quagmire that releases the uglies from their closets and separates them from their brains, apparently.

ALL we can potentially control, and the ONLY THING WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR is what WE do ... what Canada does.

So ... my question ... based on previous posts ... is this:

Can we ... Canadians ... here ... agree, in principle only if you like, that in resolving land repatriation issues, Canada should be guided by Canadian law?

This is a trick question, of course, so that's why I say only "in principle".

Edited September 7, 2007 by jennie

[guyser]

Thank you for your contribution, guyser ... I think. (idiot)

So I am the idiot now?

Funny, I recall you asking this.........

No, I absolutely agree: Equal rights for all.

There are no 'special rights'. That's just propaganda fed to confuse the issues.

So then I asked a few questions to illustrate if this was in fact true.

So, go ahead and move the goalposts all you want. You wont answer questions that are pointed at you.

And I am the idiot?

Lets make this crystal clear to all , except you , call me when the bushel is full of tomatoes.

Edited September 7, 2007 by guyser

[jennie]

So I am the idiot now?

Funny, I recall you asking this.........

No, I absolutely agree: Equal rights for all.

There are no 'special rights'. That's just propaganda fed to confuse the issues.

So then I asked a few questions to illustrate if this was in fact true.

So, go ahead and move the goalposts all you want. You wont answer questions that are pointed at you.

And I am the idiot?

Lets make this crystal clear to all , except you , call me when the bushel is full of tomatoes.

There are different laws in every town, every province, every country. Big friggen deal.

I believe reserves are considered by Canada to be federal land, not subject to provincial authority except by agreement.

However, I am not an authority.

Are you saying the laws must be the same everywhere in Canada?? GET A LIFE!!!

The noise bylaw in my town should be 11 o'clock like yours?? NO FRIGGEN WAY MAN ... YOU AIN'T MESSIN WITH THE LAWS IN MY TOWN. We party til 12.

[guyser]

Since you like to offer insults all around , I will dumb it down for you. Do I raise my voice or just talk slower?

The question, obviously misunderstood by you , that or you are intentionally playing dumb, was about the laws of Canada and how they apply to all , except they dont, and you wanted to say they were.

So now, in that juvenile teenage girl way, you now espouse local by-laws as being different all over the place. Well good for you jennie , except no one asked about by laws .

There are different laws in every town, every province, every country. Big friggen deal.

Thats good, roll the eyes, do you roll over to have your belly scratched too?

Oh but then you try and answer a question that you posed and you royally F it up.Read on, I saved it for you

I believe reserves are considered by Canada to be federal land, not subject to provincial authority except by agreement.

However, I am not an authority.

Oh we know the authority you lack. It becmes apparent with every post you make on this.

Come on now, since you like being made a fool of , we can all read this , and note the use of "laws" and then following "by laws"

Are you saying the laws must be the same everywhere in Canada?? GET A LIFE!!!

The noise bylaw in my town should be 11 o'clock like yours?? NO FRIGGEN WAY MAN ... YOU AIN'T MESSIN WITH THE LAWS IN MY TOWN. We party til 12.

So, will you answer the question or open your mouth and remove all doubt that might remain with some posters here on MLW?

[jennie]

Since you like to offer insults all around , I will dumb it down for you. Do I raise my voice or just talk slower?

The question, obviously misunderstood by you , that or you are intentionally playing dumb, was about the laws of Canada and how they apply to all , except they dont, and you wanted to say they were.

So now, in that juvenile teenage girl way, you now espouse local by-laws as being different all over the place. Well good for you jennie , except no one asked about by laws .

Thats good, roll the eyes, do you roll over to have your belly scratched too?

Oh but then you try and answer a question that you posed and you royally F it up.Read on, I saved it for you

Oh we know the authority you lack. It becmes apparent with every post you make on this.

Come on now, since you like being made a fool of , we can all read this , and note the use of "laws" and then following "by laws"

So, will you answer the question or open your mouth and remove all doubt that might remain with some posters here on MLW?

I would be happy to answer your question. Which one was the question?

I answered your question: Reserves are, I believe considered federal property and not subject to provincial authority (traffic laws, etc.) unless by agreement. So yes, you may see some things there that you would not elsewhere.

So your point is that if they don't wear a helmet, Canada has a right to keep stolen land?

What is your point?

[old_bold&cold]

I can say that yes we should be able to settle first nations land claim by the law of the land. But to do so properly we need to know what the law of the law was when they were first signed and what other laws were also in effect in those times. Such as the squatter's rights law, and the gifting of land through settlement. When these are taken in to account and given the rules and laws of there day, you would also have to understand that use it or lose it, as much as it sounds bad today, was the law of the land back then. So yes, the law of the land is where we need to start, but remember that to do it justice we need to know what the spirite of that law was in the time it was happening.

Too many people still think this is a simple case, where it really is way more complicated then most realise. The First Nations are well aware of this and yes they wish to cherry pick the laws, and how they apply today. Where the government is more into taking the laws as they were in the time of the treaty. Some where in between is where the fair line should be. But this it seems has nothing to do with fairness. Now it has become issues where neither side will comproise their positions.

The courts today give rulings that get ignored by first nations and for this the police need to arrest all those who do not obey the court order. Do it by reasonable force if necessary, but it must get done. If we allow the flouting of the courts then we will never stand a chance of settling these matters. It is that simple.

[jennie]

I can say that yes we should be able to settle first nations land claim by the law of the land. But to do so properly we need to know what the law of the law was when they were first signed and what other laws were also in effect in those times. Such as the squatter's rights law, and the gifting of land through settlement. When these are taken in to account and given the rules and laws of there day, you would also have to understand that use it or lose it, as much as it sounds bad today, was the law of the land back then. So yes, the law of the land is where we need to start, but remember that to do it justice we need to know what the spirite of that law was in the time it was happening.

Too many people still think this is a simple case, where it really is way more complicated then most realise. The First Nations are well aware of this and yes they wish to cherry pick the laws, and how they apply today. Where the government is more into taking the laws as they were in the time of the treaty. Some where in between is where the fair line should be. But this it seems has nothing to do with fairness. Now it has become issues where neither side will comproise their positions.

I don't think there is any disagreement about that obc. You are right ... it is the laws at the time that apply to decisions about land title and rights, and I have never heard anyone dispute that. One thing many people are not aware of is that the British/Canadian law at that time specified that any surrenders of land to the Crown must have the approval of the native people. However, the Indian Agents and other government agents often ignored this requirement and got surrenders signed by whomever they could get to sign, often by questionable means. There has to be evidence that the whole band was consulted and the majority agreed to the land surrender.

If you have specific information about a case you are aware of where this disagreement happened, I would be interested. This is the first time I have heard that concern.

The courts today give rulings that get ignored by first nations and for this the police need to arrest all those who do not obey the court order. Do it by reasonable force if necessary, but it must get done. If we allow the flouting of the courts then we will never stand a chance of settling these matters. It is that simple.

They won't be told to get off their own land. The courts try to do that, but it is ridiculous in my mind. "Hey you ... get off your land ... we are sending in the miners" ??

There is another law that many people are not aware of:

Prior to any development or other use of traditional and treaty land (land under claim), the Crown must consult with the First Nation and come to an agreement about land use. The government never does it, just sends in the police instead. The government is breaking the law in the case of all four blockades in Ontario right now. First Nations people repeatedly call for the government to consult, but it won't.

These confrontations could be TOTALLY avoided IF the government followed the law.

Edited September 7, 2007 by jennie